Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.MURALI SHANKAR
A.Chandra – Appellant
Versus
R.Bothumani – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. Murali Shankar, J.
The Second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.79 of 2024, dated 18.09.2025 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Bodinayakanur, Theni District, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.35 of 2004, dated 30.06.2008 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Bodinayakanur.
2. The appellant is the plaintiff. She filed a suit in O.S.No.35 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Bodinayakanur, claiming permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from encumbering or alienating the suit property till the execution of the sale deed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff.
3.The defendants filed their written statement and contested the suit. The learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur, after framing necessary issues and after full trial, passed a judgment and decree, dated 30.06.2008, dismissing the suit. Aggrieved by dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.79 of 2024 and the learned Subordinate Judge, Bodinayakanur, upon considering the materials available on record and on hearing the arguments of
Injunctions cannot be granted when an adequate remedy, like specific performance, exists, in accordance with the Specific Relief Act, and High Courts must limit their appeal jurisdiction to substanti....
The High Court's jurisdiction in second appeals is limited to substantial questions of law; factual findings by lower courts are upheld unless exceptional circumstances exist.
The High Court cannot re-assess evidence in second appeals, focusing only on substantial questions of law while confirming findings of lower courts.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of establishing lawful possession and discharge of obligations in property disputes, as well as the relevance of challenging relevan....
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....
The High Court's review in appeals under Section 100 of the CPC is limited to substantial questions of law; it cannot re-assess factual findings or interfere with the first appellate court's discreti....
The court reaffirmed that established ownership protects lawful possession, reinforcing the principle that cultivating tenants cannot be evicted without adherence to statutory procedures.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a plaintiff cannot claim injunction against the true owner without lawful possession and title.
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
