Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
Anbarasi – Appellant
Versus
V. Bhaskar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
1. This Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2021 made in A.S.No.1 of 2021 passed by the Sub Court, Alandur reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2017 made in O.S. No. 370 of 2011 passed by the Additional District Munsif, Alandur.
2.The unsuccessful plaintiff is on appeal.
3.The plaintiff has filed the above suit in O.S.No.370/2011 seeking the relief of permanent injunction and for mandatory injunction asserting that she possesses absolute title and uninterrupted possession over the 'A' schedule property to an extent of 1210 sq. ft., in T.S.No.35 under Ex.A2 sale deed dated 07.03.1996. While so, the defendant is trying to construct compound wall on the eastern side by encroaching a portion of plaintiff's 'A' schedule property and therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit.
4. On the other hand, the claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendant stating that he has purchased the property in T.S.No.34 under Ex.B1 sale deed 22.07.1991. He then constructed the building after getting approval from the Alandur Municipality and also obtained EB service connection and his property was ass
In property disputes, discrepancies between title deeds and TSLR reports favor the registered dimensions in determining ownership and encroachment, with physical possession reports being pivotal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the Advocate Commissioner's report to determine the extent of encroachment and ownership of the disputed property.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on evidence such as the Advocate Commissioner's report, sale-deeds, and the FMB sketch to confirm encroachment and shortage of land, a....
The duty of the First Appellate Court to record findings on all issues of law and facts, the admissibility of documentary evidence, and the application of res judicata.
The plaintiff's long possession and evidence of encroachment warranted relief despite the absence of a title declaration, while the defendant's claims were unsubstantiated.
A party can seek a permanent injunction without needing to declare title if there is no cloud over title and possession can be proved, even when facing encroachment claims.
[The court established that the burden of proof lies on the defendant to substantiate claims of ownership or tenancy, and failure to do so, coupled with admissions against interest, can lead to a jud....
Perpetual injunction cannot be granted without clear identification of disputed property.
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
