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

2007 Supreme(Mad) 3362

P.JYOTHIMANI
M. V. Rathinam & Another – Appellant
Versus
Padmadevi – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioners:T.P. Manoharan, Advocate. For the Respondent:N. Manokaran, Advocate.

Judgment :-

The defendants in the suit are the Revision Petitioners. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration in respect of a cart track termed as ABC in the suit plaint and sketch annexed thereto. According to her, it is the exclusive cart track to be used by her and her family members to enjoy the properties comprised in Survey No.1167/3 Punchai lands to an extent of 6.07 as well as survey No.1139 to an extent of 2.88 acres on the western side of the total extent of 21.18 acres. Pending the suit, the second defendant, who is the second petitioner in the revision has filed a written statement denying the existence of such cart track as an exclusive cart track used by the plaintiff. But, also stating that there is an alternate cart track available to the plaintiff on the northern side of survey no.1167/3 adjacent to the property of the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff has filed I.A.No.1658/2004 pending the said suit in O.S.No.905/2007 in which an Advocate Commissioner was appointed, who after visiting the suit property has filed an original report bringing out the physical features of the suit property alongwith the sketch. After the defendants/petitioners have entered appearance, t









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