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

1995 Supreme(Mad) 743

RAJU
Kempraj – Appellant
Versus
Krishnappa and Others – Respondent


Advocates:
A.S.Kailasam, for Appellant. K.R.Thiagarajan, for Respondents.

Judgment :

The plaintiff, who was successful in the trial court is the appellant in the above second appeal.

2. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit property bearing Door No.364/A within the Ooty Municipal Limits belongs to him and that it has been leased out to the first defendant. Defendants 2 and 3 are said to be the brothers of the first defendant. It is also stated has collapsed during the then unprecedented rains and floods at Ooty as a consequence of which only one room was remaining. Thereupon, the defendants were said to have attempted to put up a construction in the portion where the building had completely fallen down. It is stated that the defendants have no right to do so and consequently, it became necessary for the plaintiff to approach the trial court. In such circumstances, the suit O.S. No.365 of 1978 was filed by the plaintiff in Sub Court, Nilgiris at Ootacamund, praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from putting up any construction in the suit property or altering the nature of the suit property.

3. The defendants in their written statement while admitting the relationship of landlord and tenant with the plaintiff contended that it















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