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

2014 Supreme(Mad) 1027

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
Subbaiah Pandaram (died) – Appellant
Versus
Kandasamy – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:S. Natarajan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:S. Parthasarathy, Advocate.

Judgment :

1. This Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.42 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Aruppukottai dated 20/3/2006 confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.136 of 1999 dated 31/1/2005 on the file of the District Munsif, Aruppukottai.

2. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant.

3. The suit is filed for declaration of title, permanent injunction and for mandatory injunction.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property is an extent measuring 5 feet east west and 30 feet north south lying east of the plaintiffs property. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit property along with the property lying west of the suit property by way of sale dated 16/10/1968 under Ex.A.2 from one Ganapathy Reddiar. According to the plaintiffs, they had purchased a vacant site of 30 feet on the east west and on the west side, they had left about 1 ½ feet and constructed for 22 ½ feet and the balance 6 feet on the eastern side of the property was kept vacant. On the east of the suit property, there was a common house. The western wall of the common house was the common wall for plaintiffs house and the common house. While const










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