Back
S. SOUNTHAR
Kaliammal – Appellant
Versus
Thangaraj – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree, dated 24.01.2008, passed in A.S.No.27 of 2006 on the file of Sub-Court, Srivilliputhur, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 19.01.2006, passed in O.S.No.133 of 2002 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Srivilliputhur.
The first defendant in the suit is the appellant. The first respondent herein filed a suit for bare injunction. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and the first appeal filed by the first defendant was dismissed. Challenging the concurrent findings, the first defendant is before this Court.
2. According to the first respondent/plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to his paternal grandfather – Pethaiyar Thevar and he died in the year 1991. The only son of Pethaiyar Thevar, namely, Nataraj Thevar, father of the plaintiff, pre-deceased his father. Therefore, after the death of Pethaiyar Thevar, the plaintiff succeeded to his property and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same by paying house tax to the Government. The defendants, without having any manner of right over the suit property, attempted to interfere with
A co-owner cannot seek an injunction against another co-owner regarding property possession.
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....
The main legal point established is that the plaintiff must prove the validity of the Will in accordance with the Evidence Act and that no injunction can be granted against co-owners.
In a suit for injunction, the plaintiff must establish prima facie title or possession; failure to do so results in dismissal of the suit.
There is no absolute bar under Specific Relief Act to file suit for bare injunction even when title is in dispute.
The main legal point established is the requirement to establish possession, enjoyment, and title in a suit for permanent injunction, and the dismissal of claims without substantiating evidence.
Co-ownership implies that possession by one co-owner is possession for all, and oral relinquishment must be proven to be valid.
The court established that a Will's validity is not negated by the exclusion of heirs, provided its execution is proven and no undue influence is demonstrated.
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
