Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.MURALI SHANKAR
Govindarajan, (died), Thamaraiselvi – Appellant
Versus
Govindarajan, (died after appeal), Dhanalakshmi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.
The second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.4 of 2019, dated 19.07.2024 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.358 of 2009, dated 31.07.2017, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam.
2.The appellants are the plaintiffs. They have filed a suit in O.S.No.358 of 2009, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam, claiming permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in anyway interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
3.The respondents/defendants filed their written submissions and contested the suit. The learned District Munsif, after framing necessary issues and after full trial, passed a judgment and decree, dated 31.07.2017, granting the relief of permanent injunction as sought for with costs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.4 of 2019 and the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, upon considering the materials available on record and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, pas
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.
In a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent factual findings unless a substantial question of law is demonstrated; addit....
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....
A second appeal under Section 100 CPC is restricted to substantial questions of law; the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or allow amendments that fundamentally alter the nature of a suit or ....
The plaintiff has to prove his case on his own strength, and in this case, the appellant failed to establish his possession of the suit property, leading to the dismissal of the second appeal.
(1) Second appeal – Question of law for consideration will not arise in abstract but in all cases will emerge from facts peculiar to that case and there cannot be a strait-jacket formula.(2) Second a....
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.
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
