Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G. ARUL MURUGAN
S. Ramakrishnan – Appellant
Versus
M. Ramadas (Died) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.
1. The un-successful plaintiff has preferred the above appeal. The Second Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree, dated 27.11.2017 passed in A.S.No.35 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Nagercoil, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 28.02.2013 passed in O.S.No.441 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the litigative status before the trial Court.
Case of the plaintiff:
3. According to the plaintiff, he had purchased the suit schedule property through a registered sale deed, dated 30.08.2001 in Ex-A1 from one Thangaraja son of Kandhasamy represented by his power holder, Antony. Pursuant to his purchase, revenue records were mutated in his name and he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant, who is having no right over the suit property and who is having property adjacent to the suit schedule property of the plaintiff, had attempted several times to encroach into the suit property. The suit property is surrounded by well bounded boundaries i
A suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable when a genuine dispute on title arises. The proper remedy is a comprehensive suit for declaration, reaffirming the principle that possession follow....
In a suit for injunction over vacant land, genuine title disputes necessitate a suit for declaration; mere possession does not suffice without establishing title.
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....
In a suit for permanent injunction, if the plaintiff establishes title, a reasonable presumption of lawful possession can be drawn. The defendant's challenge to the title must be examined to determin....
In a suit for injunction against interference, absence of a substantial challenge to the plaintiff's title allows the suit to stand without a concurrent request for title declaration.
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.
A suit for injunction simpliciter is maintainable when there is interference with lawful possession, and a declaration of title is not necessary unless there is a genuine dispute over the title.
Suit filed for perpetual injunction by plaintiff, when there is cloud over title is not maintainable.
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
