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

1986 Supreme(Mad) 24

NAINAR SUNDARAM
E. Elumalaichetty – Appellant
Versus
Naina Mudali and Others – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:M.V. Krishnan, P. Seshadri, Advocates.

Judgment :-

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










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