Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN, N.SENTHILKUMAR
D. Gnanasekaran S/o Late Devaraja Naicker – Appellant
Versus
Viswanathan Ramachandran S/o R.B. Viswanathan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of property dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defendants' claim and title to property. (Para 4 , 13) |
| 3. arguments for maintainability of appeal. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. scope of section 6 and summary nature of suit. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. dismissal of suit for lack of possession proof. (Para 16) |
JUDGMENT :
P. VELMURUGAN, J.
1. The 1st plaintiff in the suit, C.S. No. 37 of 2009 has filed the instant original side appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2018 passed by the learned single Judge in the above suit.
2. The appellant/1st plaintiff along with the 4th respondent/2nd plaintiff filed the above suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for possession of the suit property claiming that the ancestors of the 1st plaintiff had purchased vast extents of lands in Zamin Mambalam and Mylapore Villages in the year 1923 and they had acquired the lands in Paimash Nos.669 and 670 in Zamin Mambalam Village. Since the Corporation of Madras had acquired vast extent of lands in Zamin Mambalam Village for development of road and other infrastructural facilities, certain lands belonging to the ancestors of the 1st plaintiff were also acquired during the said acquisition
Possession, not ownership, is the basis for relief under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, and the court cannot adjudicate title issues in such proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff was not required to ask for possession when the property was in custodia legis, and the defendants had acquired title by adverse....
In Section 6 Specific Relief Act suit, plaintiff must prove settled possession on exact dispossession date against specific defence of third-party prior occupation; trial court's perverse ignorance o....
Abandonment of an earlier suit without obtaining necessary permission under Order 23 Rule 1(4) CPC precludes the plaintiff from maintaining a subsequent suit on the same cause of action.
Watchman or caretaker's occupation of outhouse does not constitute settled possession of entire property under Section 6 Specific Relief Act; plaintiffs' prior possession proved by repair works entit....
The court affirmed that a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is maintainable for recovery of possession despite the land being government property, emphasizing the protection of possessi....
A suit for injunction is maintainable without a declaration of title when the title is not disputed, and survey boundaries are conclusive proof unless modified by a court.
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
