Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.Murali Shankar, J
11.Sivaraj – Appellant
Versus
1.Shanthi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. second appeal framed against judgments from lower courts. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. plaintiff claims possession of agricultural properties against defendants' assertions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court emphasizes its jurisdiction is limited to substantial questions of law. (Para 11 , 12 , 22) |
| 4. requirements for injunction established based on possession rights. (Para 24 , 26) |
| 5. second appeal found to lack substantial questions, warrants dismissal. (Para 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT
The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.71 of 2018, dated 28.03.2022, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.3 of 2014, dated 09.07.2018, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam.
2. The appellants are the plaintiffs 1 and 2. The deceased Sarbunnisa Begam filed a suit in O.S.No.3 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam claiming permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Pending first appeal, the sole plaintiff died and her legal repre
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
