Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.MURALI SHANKAR
K.Vijayana – Appellant
Versus
G. Gunasekaran – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.
The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.68 of 2024, dated 31.07.2025, on the file of IV Additional District Court, Madurai, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.494 of 2017, dated 02.02.2024, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thirumangalam.
2. The appellants are the defendants. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.494 of 2017, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thirumangalam claiming the relief of recovery of possession and for permanent injunction in respect of the suit properties.
3. Originally, the sole defendant filed a counter claim cum written statement and contested the suit. Pending suit, the sole defendant died and hence, his wife and sons were impleaded as defendants 2 to 6 and subsequently the second defendant also died. The learned Subordinate Judge, Thirumangalam after framing necessary issues and after full trial, passed the judgment and decree dated 02.02.2024 dismissing the suit as well as counter claim. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiffs preferred the appeal in A.S.No.68 of 2024 and the learned IV Additional District Judge, Madurai, upon consideri
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 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's jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of law, not factual disputes, and dismissal of a previous suit for default does not invoke res judicata if base....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claim of adverse possession and ownership based on an oral gift must be substantiated with clear evidence, and the burden of proof lies with....
Long possession without clear evidence of hostile intent does not equate to adverse possession, and permissive possession cannot turn adverse without communication of hostility.
A plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must prove both title and settled possession, failing which the claim may be dismissed.
(1) Adverse Possession – Mere long possession will not create any right by way of adverse possession – There should be element of definite refusal of right of ownership or title as well as hostile po....
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
