Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.Balaji, J
T.M. Thiruvenkatasamy – Appellant
Versus
M.Sundararajan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. partition allotted lands; plaintiff claims easement, permissive possession. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. trial decreed a easement, rejected b reliefs; cross-appeals. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. no easement grant/prescription; necessity despite alternative poramboke. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. b house on plaintiff land; defendant permissive occupant. (Para 13) |
| 5. framed points on track existence, house ownership. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. easement of necessity over a track upheld. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. no proof of plaintiff construction or permission for b. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 8. adverse possession perfected; no co-owner ouster needed. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 9. appeals dismissed; trial decree affirmed. (Para 33) |
COMMON JUDGMENT
1.A.S. No.131 of 2023 is at the instance of the defendant in O.S. No.20 of 2018 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode at Gopichettipalayam, challenging the Judgment and Decree granting a declaration in favour of the plaintiff to use the suit “A” schedule cart track and, consequently, a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to restore the said cart track.
A.S. No.1124 of 2025, on the other hand
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
