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

2004 Supreme(Mad) 1590

M.THANIKACHALAM
Sakunthala – Appellant
Versus
Ramaswami – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: For The Appellant:K. Raghunathan, Advocate. For The Respondent:B. Ramamoorthy, Advocate.

Judgment :-

The first defendant, who was unsuccessful before the courts below, is the appellant.

2. The subject matter of the suit is a small strip of land, which is marked in the plaint plan, comprised in Survey No.1780/2A1 of Ootacamund Town, which lies on the south of the plaintiff's property and to some extent on the north of the first defendant's property. It seems, according to the plaintiff, the defendant had opened two doorways in her property on the northern boundary, in order to have egress and ingress, over the disputed lane. Therefore, the respondent herein as plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration, that the passage lying to the south of his property, coloured blue in the plaint plan, is the private passage, over which a right has been granted only to the plaintiff and other successors in interest of Madhan and Kongan; for mandatory injunction to close the two doors opened on the northern wall of the building belonging to the first defendant, thereby to restore the status quo and for permanent injunction.

3. The main case of the plaintiff/respondent as seen from the averments in the plaint is that the disputed pathway exclusively belonged to the successors in intere















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