Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.Vadamalai, J
A.David – Appellant
Versus
N.Natarajan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal context and parties (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. dispute over property ownership (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. findings on evidence presented (Para 6 , 7 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. arguments regarding title and possession (Para 8 , 11 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. substantial questions of law addressed (Para 9 , 18) |
| 6. legal implications of findings (Para 19 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. outcome of the appeal (Para 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 02.11.2017 passed in A.S.No.28 of 2015 on the file of the Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 30.01.2015 passed in O.S.No.90 of 2012 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram.
2.The appellant is the 1st defendant and the respondents are the plaintiff and 2nd defendant in O.S.No.90 of 2012 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the newly erected eight stone pillars and newly put up barbed wire fence existing within the suit property on its western side.
3.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as plaintif
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
