Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.MURALI SHANKAR
Backiyam – Appellant
Versus
Thangapandi – Respondent
Key Points: - Point 1 (!) (!) (!) - Point 2 (!) (!) (!) - Point 3 (!) (!) (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the role of high courts in second appeals is limited. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 9) |
| 2. factual background of the case regarding land and water rights. (Para 3 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. no substantial question of law identified. (Para 7 , 8 , 19) |
| 4. assessment of the lower courts' findings. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. final decision confirming lower court's ruling. (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT :
K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.
The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.4 of 2015 dated 19.08.2025 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Theni, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.60 of 2010 and the counter claim filed therein dated 12.08.2014 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Andipatti.
2. The appellants are the defendants 1 to 5. The first respondent, as plaintiff, filed a suit in O.S.No.60 of 2010 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Andipatti, seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 5 and their men from in any manner irrigating Items 1 and 2 of the suit properties once in three days in pursuance of his 1/3rd share in the well situated in Item No.3 of the suit properties, and
The High Court's jurisdiction in a Section 100 appeal is confined to substantial questions of law, prohibiting re-evaluation of factual findings made by lower courts.
Co-owners in a service connection have shared rights over all associated equipment and cannot be excluded by one record holder's claim of exclusive rights.
High Court in second appeal under Section 100 CPC cannot re-appreciate evidence absent substantial question of law.
Where plaintiff fails to conclusively prove defendant-caused damage and continuous use of disputed amenities, mandatory injunction for restoration cannot be granted.
When registered sale deeds grant equal rights to a common well, equity cannot modify those rights or grant disproportionate declaratory relief.
The plaintiff, as the manager of the family, was entitled to maintain the suit for permanent injunction on behalf of her sons, and the defendants' interference with the plaintiff's right of enjoyment....
The plaintiff, as the manager of the family, was entitled to maintain the suit for permanent injunction on behalf of her sons, and the defendants' interference with the plaintiff's right of enjoyment....
Concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC cannot be interfered with unless found to be perverse; further, a co-owner cannot be restrained from raising construction o....
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.
The suit for injunction is not maintainable when the title of the plaintiff is under a cloud, requiring a declaration of title for proper adjudication.
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
