Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.SOUNTHAR, J
R.Savithiri – Appellant
Versus
R.Thirumoorthy – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiffs seek injunction against wall damage; defendant denies title. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. trial evidence and proceedings reviewed. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 3. substantial questions on property description and identification. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. commissioner report supports injunction excluding encroachment. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. mandatory injunction invalid; permanent injunction restored. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
J U D G M E N T
The unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants. They filed a suit for bare injunction restraining the defendant from causing any damages to north-south compound wall on the eastern side of their residential house in the suit property. The suit was decreed by the trial Court in respect of the compound wall except ‘MBQM’ portion. The trial Court also granted a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove construction in ‘HIJK’ portion. Aggrieved by the said decree, the defendant filed an appeal. The First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have come before this Court.
2. According to the plaintiffs, the building bearing Door No.4/54, Met
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
