Back
S. SOUNTHAR
S. Sarasu – Appellant
Versus
M. Sakunthala – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2013 made in A.S.No.231 of 2012 on the file of the Ist Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.06.2012 made in O.S.No.944 of 1995 on the file of Principle District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Lalgudi.)
1. The plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants. They filed a suit for bare injunction and the same was dismissed. The first appeal filed by the appellants before the first appellate Court was also dismissed. Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the appellants are before this Court.
2. According to the appellants/plaintiffs, they are absolute owners of the suit property. They claimed title to the suit property under a Will executed by his maternal aunt, Anandayee Ammal, dated 25.04.1979. It was averred in the plaint that the respondents are the southern owners of the suit property and they had no right over the same. It was the case of the appellants that from 07.07.1991 onwards, the respondents tried to interfere with the possession of the appellants and hence, they w
The failure to prove possession and the existence of a decree from an earlier suit for injunction against the appellants led to the dismissal of the second appeal. The dismissal of the suit for injun....
The plaintiff has to prove his case on his own strength, and in this case, the appellant failed to establish his possession of the suit property, leading to the dismissal of the second appeal.
In a suit for bare injunction, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving actual possession of the specific suit survey number; reliance on ambiguous tax receipts that do not reference the contested l....
Possession must be assessed by the court based on evidence, not merely on the findings of an Advocate Commissioner.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a plaintiff to prove exclusive possession in a property dispute, and the court's reliance on documentary evidence and admiss....
The burden of proof in property disputes, the principle of possession following title, and the limited jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeals.
Adverse possession plea fails when defendant acknowledges title and attempts purchase from owner.
A suit for permanent injunction does not require dismissal if there is no real cloud to the title of the plaintiff, warranting a declaration. There is no absolute bar under the Specific Relief Act to....
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
