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

2018 Supreme(Mad) 1034

T.RAVINDRAN
Palanisamy – Appellant
Versus
Subramaniam – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :S. Saravanan for M/s. K.S. Jeyaganeshan, Advocates.
For the Respondents:N.S. Sivakumar, Advocate.

JUDGMENT :

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2001 passed in A.S.No.35 of 2000 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Dharapuram, partly confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2000 passed in O.S.No.75 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kangeyam.

2. The parties are referred to as per the rankings in the trial court.

3. Suit for permanent injunction, declaration and permanent injunction.

4. As regards the reliefs sought for by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction pertaining to the OP wall as depicted in the plaint plan, inasmuch as the first appellate court has partly granted the relief in respect of the OP wall on certain conditions by modifying the judgment and decree of the trial court, as it is found that as against the above said determination of the first appellate court, the plaintiff has not raised any dispute in this second appeal, and further the defendants also having not filed any appeal or cross-objections in this appeal as regards the same, it is thus found that the present second appeal is confined only to the relief sought for by the plaintiff, in respect of his right to drainage the se























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