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

1993 Supreme(Mad) 685

THANGAMANI
Vellai Ammal and others – Appellant
Versus
Chinnammal and others – Respondent


Advocates:
K.Sampath, for Petitioners. P.S.Seetharaman, for Respondents.

Judgment :

The revision petitioners here in are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.431 of 1992 in the Court of District Munsif of Nilakottai. They filed the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their enjoyment of the suit property which is Survey No.381 /l 1-0.94 acres - Old Patta No.798, New Patta No. 1918 in Jambuthuraikottai Village, Nilakottai Taluk. The ad interim injunction obtained by them in I.ANo.694 of 1991 in that suit was vacated on 13. 1992. Alleging that subsequently the defendants have trespassed into the suit land and dispossessed them, they have come forward with I.A.No.387 of 1992 under O.6, Rule 17, C.P.C. to amend the plaint so as tosubstitute the relief of injunction by one for recovery of possession. Besides, stating that the trespass alleged is not true and that they are in enjoyment of the property since the date of their purchase on 10. 1979 the defendants did not give any valid objection for amending the plaint in their counter -statement. They only stated that the proposed amendment is not valid in law. The court below has dismissed the said application for the reason that as per the aver-men ts in the counter the defendan






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