SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(Ker) 100

M.M PAREED PILLAY
T. Prasad – Appellant
Versus
P. D. Punnoose – Respondent


Advocates:
K. Jaju Babu, for Appellants; R. D. Shenoi, for Respondents.

JUDGMENT :-

Appellants are the defendants. Plaintiffs (respondents) filed the suit for prohibitory and mandatory injunction on the allegation that the defendants have demolished the western boundary of their property for laying a pathway. Plaintiff's also sought for a mandatory injunction to restore the western boundary in its original condition. The trial Court decreed the suit and granted permanent prohibitory. injunction restrainirig the defendants from trespassing upon the plaint schedule property or destroying its boundaries or committing any acts of waste therein. They were also directed by a mandatory injunction to restore the western boundary of the plaint schedule property in its original condition. The SubJudge confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal by the defendants.

2. In view of Ext. C-2(a) survey plan, it was found by the Courts below that no portion of the plaint schedule property is purampokku as contended by the defendants. The Courts held that western boundary wall of the plaint schedule property was demolished at the instance of the defendants on the eve of suit and also after suit: That being a finding of fact cannot be assa








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top