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

2000 Supreme(Mad) 303

P.SATHASIVAM
K. Mokkamayan – Appellant
Versus
P. Pushaparani and another – Respondent


Advocates:
R.Subramanian, for Petitioner.
K.Venugopalan, for Respondents.

ORDER: The revision petition is directed against the order dated 7.12.1999 in O.S.No.154 of 1997 on the file of District Munsif, Periyakulam.

2. First defendant in that suit is the petitioner in this revision. Respondents herein filed the said suit for bare injunction. The petitioner herein/1st defendant therein filed a written statement disputing the claim made by the plaintiff and also denied the allegation that the plaintiff purchased the suit property through a registered sale deed dated 12.2.1985. It is also contended that plaintiff does not have title or possession over the suit property. He also specifically pleaded that he has been in physical possession and enjoyment as pathway for more than the statutory period and such possession and enjoyment was open, hostile and uninterrupted one, and perfected his title by adverse possession.

3. While the petitioner- first defendant was examined as D.W.1, an unregistered sale deed dated 14.10.1980 was sought to be marked through him. The same was objected to by the plaintiff on the ground that since the defendant wants to establish his possession through the said document and the same being an unregistered one, the same cannot be marke










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