Back
P. VELMURUGAN
Radhakrishnan (died) – Appellant
Versus
Kaliamurthy – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: The Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the decree and judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tanjore at Kumbakonam in A.S.No.41 of 2002 on 05.12.2002 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Munsif Judge at Kumbakonam in O.S.No.714 of 1994, dated 05.07.2001.)
1. The appellant herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.714 of 1994 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tanjore at Kumbakonam against the respondents herein for bare injunction.
2. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court against the respondents herein. The defendants in the said suit filed an appeal in A.S.No.41 of 2002 on the file of Additional District Sessions cum Judicial Magistrate, Tanjore at Kumbakonam. The first appellate Court, after hearing the appeal, has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Against the said judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, the plaintiff has filed the present second appeal before this Court.
3. While admitting the second appeal, this Court has f
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.
Suit of the plaintiff for bare injunction is not maintainable and the First Appellate Court could not have decreed the suit of the plaintiff, when the defendants apart from denying the title and poss....
Possession must be assessed by the court based on evidence, not merely on the findings of an Advocate Commissioner.
Revenue records do not confer title or prove possession against commissioner report and admissions showing physical division by road and fencing; injunction suit maintainable on possession without de....
A suit for permanent injunction requires proof of possession; if title is disputed, a declaratory suit is necessary, and failure to include necessary parties renders the suit untenable.
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....
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
