Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi, J
Philip Mathew – Appellant
Versus
B. Mythile – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal addressing legal sufficiency of evidentiary documents. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. non-pleading of easementary rights weakens the plaintiff's position. (Para 5 , 10 , 15) |
| 3. claims regarding easementary rights necessitate robust evidence. (Para 6 , 7 , 12) |
| 4. court emphasizes priority of documented rights over oral claims. (Para 14 , 16) |
JUDGMENT
In this Second Appeal, challenge is made to the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No.28/2018 dated 30.09.2021 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Coonoor, confirming the judgment and decree dated 04.07.2018 passed in O.S. No.96/2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Coonoor.
2. The Second Appeal has been admitted on the following Substantial questions of law.
"(1) Whether the Courts below have substantially erred in law in ignoring Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 which are the registered documents and Title Deed to both the appellant and the 1st respondent in view of the well settled principle of law that the registered documents will prevail over the oral evidence of parties?
(2) Whether the Courts below have failed to give their findings on the strength and evidence produced by the appellant?
(3) Whether the reports given by the two expe
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
