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

2005 Supreme(Mad) 1344

T.V.MASILAMANI
Ponnusamy – Appellant
Versus
Ramasamy – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: For the Appellant:N.Manokaran, Advocate. For the Respondent:A.L.Gandhimathi, Advocate.

Judgment :-

(Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 7.7.1993 made in A.S. No.12 of 1993 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode confirming the judgment and decree dated 7.2.1991 in O.S.No.764 of 1988 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Erode.)

The appellant is the defendant who lost before both the courts below.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction. The appellant/defendant resisted the same by filing the written statement. On the basis of the pleadings, learned II Additional District Munsif framed the issues and after analysing the evidence both oral and documentary adduced by both the parties, he decreed the suit as prayed for with costs. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the appellant preferred the appeal before the first appellate court. The learned Subordinate Judge after analysing the recorded evidence and upon hearing both sides dismissed the same by confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. Hence, the Second Appeal.

3. The averments in the plaint filed by the respondent/plaintiff are briefly as follows:-

(a) The plaintiff purchased the suit property from Muthuswam




































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