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

2019 Supreme(Mad) 3427

T.RAVINDRAN
Durairaj – Appellant
Versus
Philip – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :B. Ravi, Advocate
For the Respondent:P. Valliappan, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

T. Ravindran, J.

1. Challenge in this Second Appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 16.10.2015 passed in A.S. No. 36 of 2014 on the file of the Additional District Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ariyalur, reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2013 passed in O.S. No. 46 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Jayamkondam.

2. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

    (a) Whether in law is not the Lower Appellate Court wrong in granting decree for declaration of Easementary Right by prescription in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 13 of Easements Act?

(b) Whether in Law is not the Lower Appellate Court wrong in granting decree for declaration of Easementary Right by prescription as prayed for by holding that the Appellant/Plaintiff is entitled for Easementary Right by necessity which is not prayed for?

(c) Is not the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court vitiated in that it has failed to consider Exs. B3 to B5 which clearly show that there is no reference to the existence of Cart Track in the prior title deeds?

3. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the partie

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