Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
Chidambaram – Appellant
Versus
Aayiravalliammal Rep.by her Power of Attorney Agent S.R.Shanmuganathan – Respondent
ORDER
The judgment debtor who had suffered a decree for permanent injunction has filed the present civil revision petition challenging the order passed in the execution proceedings wherein the Executing Court had directed removal of a concrete roof over and above the common pathway.
(A)Factual Matrix:
2.The first respondent herein as plaintiff had filed O.S.No.651 of 2002 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai Town for the relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. The plaintiff had contended that the suit schedule property is a pathway and the defendants are obstructing the usage of the pathway. It was further contended that the defendant has put up some obstruction in the pathway and they have to be removed.
3.The trial Court had decreed the suit as prayed for. The defendants had filed A.S.No.75 of 2009 before the II Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai. The First Appellate Court was pleased to allow the appeal and dismissed the suit. Challenging the same, the plaintiff had filed S.A.No.1231 of 2011. This Court after considering the submissions made on either side, had arrived at a finding that the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for mandatory injunc
A permanent structure over a common pathway is permissible if it does not materially interfere with the usage rights of co-owners, and mere allegations of infringement without evidence of actual inco....
The principle of 'interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium' - there should be a limit to the litigation.
A co-owner cannot obstruct a common passage, and the appropriate limitation period under the Limitation Act was correctly applied.
The main legal point established is the enforcement of court orders and the removal of physical obstructions to ensure the free egress and ingress of the appellant over the pathway.
The appellate court's findings were upheld, affirming its jurisdiction and the validity of its decision despite the trial court's earlier ruling.
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
