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
2. The Second Appeal has been admitted on the following Substantial questions of law.
(2) Whether the Courts below have failed to give their findings on the strength and evidence produced by the appellant?
(4)Whether the issue of encroachment can also be decided based on the continuous use of the common road for over four decades as easementary right to the appellant's property and the usage of common road emanating from the Parent Deed is legal and sustainable in Law?
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the Trial Court.
a) Granting permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant and their agent servants, subordinate, not to proceed with any construction work on the northern side of the common motorable road branching out from Bed Ford Main Road and ending with the plaintiffs 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
