Back
N. ANAND VENKATESH
S. N. Subramani – Appellant
Versus
R. Rathnasamy (died) – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.88 of 2011, dated 18.07.2012, on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.194 of 2009 dated 20.8.2011 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Erode.)
1. The defendants 1 to 5, 8 and 9 are the appellants in this Second Appeal.
2. The 1st and 2nd respondents along with their father filed a suit seeking for the relief of declaration of title in the suit property and for a declaration that the registration of the new cart track through sale deed dated 25.01.2008 by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant is null and void and for the relief of permanent injunction.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that they are the absolute owners of the suit property in R.S.No.519/2 measuring an extent of 15 cents and the entire extent of R.S.No.519/3 and they also claimed to be the joint owners of R.S.No.519/4 along with one Karuppana Gounder. The further case of the plaintiffs is that on the northern side of their properties, there is a cart track with a width of 15 feet which runs
The burden of proof lies with the party making a specific claim, and the court will analyze the evidence presented to establish the truth of the claim.
The limitations of interference under Sec. 100 of CPC and the requirement of substantial question of law for second appeal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear title and acceptable evidence to support claims of possession and easementary rights.
Interpretation of Will and Sale Deeds to determine the right to use the common cart track.
A prescriptive easement right is established through clear evidence of continuous, long-standing usage by the claimant and their predecessors, documented in historical title deeds, unaffected by the ....
The court affirmed that plaintiffs possess easementary rights over a common Cart Track, while the defendants' claims of absolute ownership were unsupported by evidence.
The courts upheld the right of the plaintiffs to use the cart track as mentioned in the schedule to the plaint, perfected by prescription and necessity.
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
