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

1999 Supreme(Mad) 1160

K.SAMPATH
Pillaiyar – Appellant
Versus
Ganesan and another – Respondent


Advocates:
Chitra Venkatesh for Mr.S.Subbiah, Advocate for Petitioner. No Appearance for Respondents.

Judgment :

.1. This revision has been filed against the order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Srivilluputhur, in I.A.No.862 of 1998 in O.S.No.213 of 1998 appointing an advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property, note down the physical features and file a report along with a plan.

2. The suit has been for a declaration that the pathway covered by the letter CDEFGHI as shown in the plaint plan belongs to the plaintiff exclusively and consequential injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 and another K. Rajamani who is the third defendant in the suit, from interfering with petitioners/plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment for a mandatory injunction directing the first respondent herein to close the door way fixed on the parapet wall T for mandatory injunction directing the third defendant in the suit to close the door way kept by him on the parapet wall G and for a permanent injunction restraining the second respondent herein from putting up any construction in the area converted by GH in the plaint plan and for other reliefs.

3. Pending the suit the revision petitioner applied for an interim injunction and notice has been ordered and the injunction application is





























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