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

1996 Supreme(Mad) 9

S.S.SUBRAMANI
Payasam Karuppannan – Appellant
Versus
Viswananthan – Respondent


Advocates:
Mis.P. Gurunathan and Mr. P.Srivasan, Advocate for Appellant Mr.
N. Chandrasekaran, Advocate for Respondent.

Judgment :

1. Plaintiff in O.S.No.181 of 1990, on the file of District Munsif s Court at Erode, is the appellant.

2. Suit filed by him was one for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

.3. Material averments in the plaint are as follows: The suit property situated in Erode and the locality is known as Sait Colony. It is said that by various transactions of the owners of the property, an east west omen cart track upto a well on the north of the site owner to reach their respective plots from the south was provided. Plaintiff came to occupy a portion of the road and put up a shed about 25 years ago. It is said that the plaintiff has been making use of the same for the last 25 years, and has prescribed title by adverse possession. Defence has acquired one such site from the owner and is running a Nursery School. Defendant is claiming that suit property also as his own and also moved the Revenue Divisional Officer for getting possession. Plaintiff apprehends that the defendant may cause interference with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property, since the R.D.O. has also a













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