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

2005 Supreme(Mad) 222

S.R.SINGHARAVELU
Madras Metropolitan Development – Appellant
Versus
P. Muthukrishnan & Others – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: For The Appellant:V.Perumal for CMDA. For The Respondents:A.J.Abdul Razak, Advocate.

Judgment :-

This Second Appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 19.04.1993 in A.S.No.213 of 1992 of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in confirming the decree and judgment passed on 18.12.1990 in O.S.2533 of 1988 by the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.

2. While admitting the Second Appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed:

"When application to regularise unauthorised construction has been refused by an order dated 5-4-1988, and there was not even a further appeal to the Government, are the Courts below right in granting the prayer in the suit?"

3. The suit was for declaration that notice dated 21.02.1988 issued to one Padmanabhan, father of plaintiffs under section 56 of Tamil Nadu Act 35 of 1972 (Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971) as illegal and for permanent injunction not to demolish the suit building by virtue of the above said notice. The suit was decreed by both the courts below.

4. It is not in dispute that the suit land belongs to the plaintiffs by virtue of a sale deed in their favour dated 15.12.1986, marked as Ex.A-5. Admittedly, the plaintiffs have constructed ground floor and three floors in t











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