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

2007 Supreme(Mad) 122

A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN
Jayaraman & Others – Appellant
Versus
Perunayammal & Another – Respondent


For the Appellants:T. Murugamanickam, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 & R2, D. Balaji, Advocates.

Judgment :-

The defendants in O.S.No.47 of 1989 on the file of District Munsifs Court, Attur, who have lost their defence before the trial court and in the first appeal too are before this Court in the second appeal.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.47 of 1989 on the file of District Munsifs Court, Attur, for an order of permanent injunction against the defendants, restraining them from taking water from the common well in Survey No.208/6 to Survey Numbers 208/3 and 208/9 apart from their lands in Survey Numbers 208/4 and 208/7.

3. The short facts of the plaintiffs case in the plaint runs as follows:

The plaint schedule property belonged to the first plaintiff Krishnan who died pending suit. The predecessors-in-title of the first plaintiff viz., Mukkan had purchased the plaint schedule property from the brother and father of the first defendant on 8. 1951. On the same day, an agreement of sale and a deed of re-sale were also came into existence between the parties. The deed of re-sale was cancelled by the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiff Mukkan and others as per relinquishment deed dated17. 1985. The first plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the sui





























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