Back
G. ARUL MURUGAN
Natarajan – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Understood. Please provide the legal document (using the
JUDGMENT :
G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.
Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2005 made in A.S. No. 6 of 2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Bhavani confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2003 made in O.S. No. 890 of 1992 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Bhavani.
1. The instant second appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the Judgment and decree dated 28.04.2005 in A.S. No. 6 of 2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Bhavani, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2003 made in O.S. No. 890 of 1992 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Bhavani.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts in the plaint are as follows: As per the plaint, there is a total extent of 5.01 acres of land in S.F. No. 544 of Ennamangalam Village, Bhavani Taluk. As per the exchange deed executed on 21.09.1936, an extent of 2.50.5 acres, i.e. half of the property mentioned in the suit A schedule property belongs to one Kumarappa Gounder, and the other extent of 2.50.5 acres in the B schedule property came
The court established that a party must act within the limitation period to challenge survey determinations, and easement rights can be extinguished if they become incapable of being beneficial.
The right and title to property have to be determined not with reference to survey demarcation but based on other cogent materials, primary of which is title deed. The record of survey result shall b....
The burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish title over disputed land, which they failed to do, while defendants proved their title through earlier documents.
A suit for injunction is maintainable without a declaration of title when the title is not disputed, and survey boundaries are conclusive proof unless modified by a court.
The court clarified the application of res judicata in property disputes and upheld the plaintiff's right to seek a mandatory injunction to remove encroachments without claiming possession.
A simple suit for injunction is not maintainable when there is a dispute over title, and the plaintiffs must prove possession within the claimed boundaries.
The Court established that attempting to claim declaration in respect of the same property, which was already dealt with in an earlier suit, was impermissible and an abuse of process of law.
The absence of notice regarding property subdivision invalidates its binding effect on aggrieved parties, and the presumption of boundary determination does not apply to title claims.
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
