Back
S. SOUNTHAR
G. Muthusamy (died) – Appellant
Versus
Executive Officer – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRAYER: S.A.(MD) No.756 of 2008 is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 30.11.2004, passed in A.S.No.9 of 2003 on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Dindigul, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 20.12.2000, passed in O.S.No.2155 of 1990 on the file of II Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul.
PRAYER: S.A.(MD) No.757 of 2008 is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 30.11.2004, passed in A.S.No.277 of 2004 on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Dindigul, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 20.12.2000, passed in O.S.No.531 of 1994 on the file of II Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul.
PRAYER: S.A.(MD) No.758 of 2008 is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 30.11.2004, passed in A.S.No.276 2004 on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Dindigul, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 20.12.2000, passed in O.S.No.532 of 1994 on the file of II Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul.
The plaintiffs in the suits are the appellants. The appellants in S.A. (MD) Nos.756 and 758 of 2008 have filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction against the respondent. The appellant in S.A.(MD) No.757 of 2008 filed a suit for bare injunction again
The presumption of ownership under Section 44 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Act requires appellants to provide evidence to rebut the established rights of religious institutions over inam lands.
Statutory presumption under Section 44 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Act establishes ownership rights of religious institutions over inam lands, unless rebutted by substantial evidence.
Statutory grants of title following inam abolition provide the necessary basis to recover possession without seeking additional title declaration.
The temple established its title over properties through legal processes, while defendants failed to prove their claims, leading to dismissal of appeals.
The jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeals under Section 100 is limited to substantial questions of law; it cannot reassess factual findings unless a clear error in law has been demonstrate....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction under Section 21 of Act 30 of 1963, and the possession was not with the first defendant, but with the seco....
Appellant has miserably failed to establish a cogent link as to who were his predecessor in title and merely stating that patta has been granted would not be sufficient and going by such statement
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
