Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J
P.Thangaraj – Appellant
Versus
District Collector Salem – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. title dispute led to revenue order restraining petitioners' interference. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. no current interference confirmed by both parties. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. maintain status quo pending civil suit; petition disposed. (Para 7) |
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated
22.07.2020 passed by the 3rd respondent.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, there is a title dispute over the subject property between the petitioners and the 5th respondent. Under these circumstances, at the instance of 5th respondent, the 3rd respondent had passed an order dated 22.07.2020 by directing the petitioners not to interfere with the possession of the 5th respondent. Further, the 3rd respondent had suggested the parties to approach any appropriate Civil Court to decide with regard to the title of the property.
3. According to the petitioners, they had not at all interfered with the possession of the 5th respondent and hence, aggrieved over the said order, the present petition came to be filed.
4. Today, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent had confirmed the submission made by the petitioners and would su
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
