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

2020 Supreme(Mad) 610

G.JAYACHANDRAN
R. Pattayyan – Appellant
Versus
K. Padmanabhan – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sudharson, N. Damodaran, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mukundan for M/s. Sarvabhuman Asso., Advocates.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2009 made in A.S.No.95 of 2008 on the file of the Third Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2006 made in O.S.No.896 of 2005 on the file of the Third Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.)

(The case has been heard through video conference)

1. This Second Appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the concurrent finding of the Courts below.

2. The plaintiff being the owner of the property in S.No.153/1 of Madhampatti village claiming Easementary Right over 13 feet cart track prescribed to him under the sale deed Ex.A2 laid suit for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction alleging that the defendant has encroached 3 feet east-west, 35 feet north-south of the cart track at the entrance of the cart tack. His case is being a dominant tenement, his right of easement of way cannot be encroached by the survient tenement.

3. The suit was defended on the ground that there is no 13 feet cart track in the field. It is only 11 feet width. The vendor to the plaintiff and the defendant were using th

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