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

2001 Supreme(Mad) 1162

M.CHOCKALINGAM
T. Muniappa and Another – Appellant
Versus
Perumiah and Others – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:R. Subramanian, M. V. Krishnan, Advocates.

Judgment :-

This second appeal is preferred from the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri dated 4-4-1990 made in A.S. No. 84/88 confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court viz. the District Munsif, Hosur made in O.S. No. 188 of 1979 dated 26-6-1985.

2. The respondents herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 188 of 1979 seeking for a declaration that they are entitled to use the mamool MN path way cum cart track as shown in the plaint plan, for a consequential permanent injunction along with the relief of mandatory injunction for removal of the varandah construction put up by the appellants and for a declaration that the vacant space shown in the plaint plan is a common space between the parties along with consequential injunction. It is alleged that the first respondent is the owner of the house and vacant site described as ABCD in the plan by way of purchase under a registered sale-deed dated 26-4-1949 while the second plaintiff is the owner of the house described as EFGH in the plaint plan; that on the north of the house of the first respondent, the first appellant is having his house shown as IJKL and on the further north Rajaveedhi runni





























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