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

1999 Supreme(Mad) 2735

S.S.SUBRAMANI
M. A. Raja – Appellant
Versus
S. Vedhantham Pillai and others – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr.D. Rajagopal, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr.P. Jagadeesan, Advocate for Respondent.

Judgment :

1. This revision petition arises in execution in O.S. No. 422 of 1981 on the file of District Munsif Court, Mettur.

2. First respondent herein has obtained a decree, which reads thus,

"(i) That the defendants and their men be and are, hereby permanently restrained by a permanent injunction from a ny manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff.

(ii) that the defendants be and are hereby directed by a mandatory injunction to demolish and remove the building constructed by them in the suit property in S. No. 2/A/2 obstructing the entrance marked as A in Ex.C2 Commis-sionersplan attached herewith to the building of the plaintiff within aperiod of 3 months from this date.

(iii) that in default of such removal by the defendant within 3 months stated in decree in plan is at liberty to take appropriate steps for such removal"

The decree is dated 30.8.1981. Decree holder filed E.P.200 of 1986 to execute the decree, by appointment of Commissioner and to remove obstruction. Petitioner took a contention that the decree is one for mandatory Injunction and since the execution petition was filed beyond three years. It is bar
































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