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

1975 Supreme(Mad) 502

V.STTHURAMAN
Ramasamy Moopanar – Appellant
Versus
Rathnammal and others – Respondent


Advocates:
S. Gopalaratnam, for Appellant.
P.N. Venugopalan, T. Thirumalraj and R. Thiagarajan, for Respondents.

JUDGMENT.-The defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff, who is running an elementary school on the suit property, filed a suit against the defendant for an injunction restraining him from interfering with his possession and enjoyment. The site, on which there is said to be a school building, was classified as Government poramboke or natham land. The plaintiff claimed that he and his predecessor-in-title had been in occupation for over 7O years. The defence was that the suit property belonged to the defendant and that under a licence granted by his father, the plaintiff was running the school in the property. The defendant relied on a partition of 1918, in which this property was dealt with by his family. The defendant’s case was that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief claimed.

2. The trial Court took the view that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant had established title to the suit property. It, however, granted an injunction, as the plaintiff was in possession. The learned Subordinate Judge to whom the respondent appealed, held, on the basis of Exhibits B-3 to B-7, a partition-deed and certain other sale-deeds, in which in the description of boundaries, the present






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