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

2022 Supreme(Mad) 1420

R. VIJAYAKUMAR
Emily – Appellant
Versus
Sundaram – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:K.P. Narayanakumar, Advocate. For the Respondent:R. Sreenivasan, R. Nandakumar, Advocates.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, against the decree and judgment passed by the Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram in A.S.No.49 of 2017 dated 11.03.2020 confirming the decree and judgment passed by the Principal District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram in O.S.No.19 of 2013 dated 14.09.2017.)

1. The defendants 1 to 4 are the appellants.

2. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.19 of 2013 before the District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram for declaration of easement right of pathway by necessity over plaint 'C' schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing any obstruction to the use of 'C' schedule pathway by plaintiff. The suit was decreed by the trial Court as prayed for. The defendants 1 to 4 filed A.S.No.49 of 2017 before the Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram. The learned Subordinate Judge was pleased to dismiss the appeal. As against the concurrent findings, the present second appeal has been filed by the defendants 1 to 4.

3. The plaintiff has contended that 'A' schedule property belongs to him by way of two sale deeds dated 21.08.1998 and 07.12.2006 marked as Exhibits A1 and A2. According to the plaintiff, the plaint 'B'

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