Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. Dhanabal, J
Jamunarani W/o Late Radhakrishnan – Appellant
Versus
Rajabagiyam W/o Mathivanan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of property dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. court observations on possession and evidence. (Para 8 , 12 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. arguments by appellants regarding injunction unsubstantiated. (Para 10 , 11 , 14) |
| 4. ratio decidendi on maintainability of injunction suits. (Para 16 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. conclusion dismissing the second appeal. (Para 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT
The Second Appeal has been preferred as against the decree and judgment passed by the Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram in A.S. No.10 of 2014 dated 31.03.2015. The appellants herein are the defendants in the main Suit filed by the Plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction. Before the trial Court, the Plaintiff, who is the respondent in this Second Appeal, filed the Suit for permanent injunction and the same was decreed. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the defendants filed an appeal and the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants.
2. The gist of the Plaint are as follows:-
The Suit properties belonged to the Plaintiff’s father Kannus
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
