Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
P. RAJAMANICKAM, J.
Vimala – Appellant
Versus
Gnaneswaran and Ors. – Respondents
Second Appeal No. 483 of 2002
Decided On : 19-05-2020
Mandatory Injunction – Vacant Possession of Suit – Legal Representatives – Construction Illegally – Learned District Munsif by judgment had decreed suit as prayed for with costs. Aggrieved by same defendants had filed an appeal and decree had allowed said appeal and set aside judgment and decree passed by Trial Court and dismissed suit property to plaintiff under a registered sale deed for a valuable consideration and delivered possession of same boundaries given in respect of eastern and western directions were mistakenly interchanged as on western side situated and on eastern side common pathway measuring 12 feet is situated; but the correct boundaries of suit properties are given in plaint schedule intention of vendor was only to convey suit property and suit property and delivered possession of same – Held, Court of First Appeal must record its finding only after dealing with all issues of law as well and with evidence, oral as well as documentary, led by parties clear that First Appellate Court must give reasons in respect of its findings stated First Appellate Court failed to consider evidence on record and Judgment and Decree of First Appellate Court are set aside and matter is remitted back toFirst Appellate Court for fresh consideration line of aforesaid decisions of Honble Supreme Court these substantial questions of law are answered – Court has Jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of trial court appeal is a valuable right of parties and unless restricted by law whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of law – Judgment of appellate court must reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of appellate court – Second Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
P. Rajamanickam, J.
1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff, against the judgment and decree passed by the II Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri in A.S. No. 108 of 1999 dated 19.12.2000 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the District Munsif, Krishnagiri in O.S. No. 372 of 1996 dated 30.09.1999.
2. The appellant herein had filed a suit in O.S. No. 372 of 1996 on, the file of the District Munsif, Krishnagiri for the relief of declaration of her title over the suit property; for delivery of vacant possession of the suit property; for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the construction/superstructure put up in the suit property and for mesne profits.
3. The learned District Munsif, by judgment dated 30.09.1999 had decreed the suit as prayed for with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants had filed an appeal in A.S. No. 108 of 1999 on the file of the II-Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri. The II-Additional District Judge, by the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2000 had allowed the said appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the suit. However, he directed the parties to bear their respective costs. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as described before the Trial Court.
5. The averments made in the plaint are in brief as follows:-
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
