Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D. Maria Clete, J
Srinivasan – Appellant
Versus
Periyasamy Gounder – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff proved possession over distinct suit property. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. bare injunction unsustainable if title seriously disputed. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. defendants failed to plead/prove property subdivision. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. prior decree no bar without property identity proof. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. concurrent possession findings not reappreciable in second appeal. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. appeal dismissed, injunction decree confirmed. (Para 20 , 21) |
J U D G M E N T
This Second Appeal is filed by the defendants 2 and 3 against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2013 in A.S.No.7 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi confirming the Judgment and decree dated 16.09.2004 in O.S.No.338 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi, whereby the trial Court decreed the suit for permanent injunction .
2. For the convenience , the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. Plaintiff’s Case in Brief: The Plaintiff’s case is that the suit property is land in S.No.111/8 measuring 45 cents in Vinaitheerthapuram village, Kallakurichi Taluk. The plaintiff claimed that he purchased the suit prope
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
