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

2020 Supreme(Mad) 2068

M.GOVINDARAJ
RADHABAI – Appellant
Versus
G. BHEEMAN @ BHEEMA – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for Appearing Parties
G. Kumud Jhabakh, Advocate, N. Damodaran, Advocate

JUDGMENT/ORDER

M. Govindaraj, J. - The present Second Appeal has been preferred against the concurrent findings of Courts below on a suit for permanent injunction.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are called as per their rankings in the suit.

3. Plaintiffs are the appellants.

4. According to the plaintiffs their father one V.Viswananthan purchased a land measuring an extent of 8 1/2 cents in R.S.No.1788 and 1787 of Ootacamund town together with all rights of way and other easements, advantages and privileges appertaining thereto by registered sale deed No.218/1980 dated 04.02.1980. He gifted the said property in equal share measuring 0.02 8/16 cents each in favour of the plaintiffs by way of registered gift deed Nos.305 and 306/1981 dated 20.10.1981. Ever since the gift in favour of the plaintiffs in the year 1981 they were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective shares along with the right of way (foot path) measuring a width of 5 feet being the only access to their property. The foot path made of stone stairs branching out from the Municipal office road(foot path) and reaching the plaintiffs property. The right of way was in enjoyment and usage by the plain

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