Back
R. VIJAYAKUMAR
D. Srinivasan – Appellant
Versus
S. Kannigadevii – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli in A.S.No.55 of 2018, dated 06.11.2019 confirming the judgment and decree of learned Principal District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli in O.S.No.913 of 2012, dated 22.01.2018.)
1. The first defendant is the appellant herein.
2. The plaintiff had filed O.S.No.913 of 2012 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruchirapalli for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to remove the encroachment made on the 'B' Schedule property and the roof top of the temple situated in 'B' Schedule property. The plaintiff further prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from any one encroaching the suit 'B' Schedule property by drawing pipeline on the floor or underneath causing hindrance to the house of the plaintiff and other co-sharers. The trial Court decreed the suit with regard to the prayer for mandatory injunction. However, dismissed the suit with regard to the prayer for permanent injunction. The first defendant filed A.S.No.55 of 2018 before the I Additional Sub Court, Ti
The central legal point established in the judgment is that encroachments on common property and the extension of property over and above a family temple warrant the granting of mandatory injunction,....
Co-owners can seek injunctions against each other to protect their rights, and findings from previous suits on common property usage are binding.
The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish their case, and the court will uphold decisions based on evidence presented, rejecting contentions of delay and laches, and the applicability ....
Mandatory injunction maintainable for encroachment removal without possession prayer when ownership admitted and damages inadequate.
A co-owner cannot obstruct a common passage, and the appropriate limitation period under the Limitation Act was correctly applied.
The court confirmed that claims of property encroachment require substantial proof; failure to demonstrate ownership or obstruction by defendants led to dismissal of the plaintiffs' appeal.
The court ruled that a plaintiff's acquiescence to ongoing construction delays the right to seek mandatory injunction, favoring monetary compensation instead.
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
