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

2019 Supreme(Mad) 1378

G.JAYACHANDRAN
Chidambaram Pillai – Appellant
Versus
A. P. Namachivayam – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. K. Ramanraj
For the Respondent: Mr. P. Jagadeesan.

JUDGMENT :

G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

Prayer: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2002 in A.S. No. 114 of 1999 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem District, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.03.1999 in O.S. No. 918 of 1995 passed by the learned I Additional District Munsif, Salem.

1. The defendants in the suit is the appellants herein. The suit is filed for declaration in respect of lane comprised in S. No. 146 measuring 6 feet x 47 feet as a common lane and mandatory injunction to remove the wall shown as ''A'' and ''B'' in the plan on the north south of the common lane with door and door frame.

2. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs are entitled to half right in the common lane running on east of his house in its entirety and granted relief of declaration. Further, it held that the defendants cannot claim exclusive enjoyment of suit lane and prevent the plaintiffs access. Therefore, mandatory injunction to remove the suit wall.

3. Aggrieved by that, the defendants filed A.S. No. 114 of 1999 on the file of First Additional District cum Chief Judi

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