Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI, J
K.T.J.Prakash – Appellant
Versus
S.T.Rajan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. obstruction petitions are dismissed due to absence of independent rights. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. ownership claims are contested through prior decrees and tenant disputes. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court concluded petitioner lacks merit and solid legal standing. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. final dismissal of civil revision petitions noted. (Para 12) |
COMMON ORDER
The revision petitioner is an obstructor, whose applications for noting his obstruction have been dismissed by the XVI Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2.I have heard Mr.B.Nedunchelian, learned counsel for the revision petitioner in both the revision petitions and Mr.A.Amal Raj, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 in both the revision petitions.
3.Mr.B.Nedunchelian, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would state that the respondents have initiated eviction proceedings in RCOP.Nos.1342 and 1343 of 2016 on the file of the XVI Small Causes Court, Chennai. In the eviction petitions, Section 11(4) application was filed, alleging non payment of rents against the 3rd respondent. An order of eviction came to be passed in the said proceedings and E.P.Nos.31 and 32 of 2024 were filed by the respondents 1 and 2
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
