NAINAR SUNDARAM
E. Elumalaichetty – Appellant
Versus
Naina Mudali and Others – Respondent
The plaintiff who succeeded in the first court but failed before the lower appellate Court is the appellant in this second appeal. The plaintiff claimed a right to a 2 ft broad space, B schedule property, on the western side of his house and for an injunction restraining the defendants from taking their cattle and men through that space and for an injunction directing the defendants to remove the cement tub built at the southern end of that space which obstructs the passage and stagnates the water. The lower appellate court considered the title deeds relied upon by the plaintiff, Exs. A. 1 and A. 2. It is found that the plaintiff made no attempt to fix the boundary line of the concerned street and the Commissioner's plan.
Ex.C. 2 shows that the plaintiff has constructed two platforms on the eastern side of his house; one platform is 4' broad and another platform is 3'. 6
"broad and if the measurements are taken from the platforms, then the plaintiff will have no title to the disputed space, B schedule property. I cannot say that the assessment of this question by the lower appellate Court on the basis of the factual materials disclosed is preverse and requires review by
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.