Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.Balaji, J
Rethnadhas – Appellant
Versus
Ramadhas – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. litigation history and partition claim background. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. appellants argue res judicata and limitation bar. (Para 5) |
| 3. respondents claim liberty granted and continuing right. (Para 6) |
| 4. no liberty under order 23 cpc from stray observation. (Para 8 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. property purchases and prior partition allotment. (Para 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 6. suit barred by limitation under article 65. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 7. adverse possession not perfected due to litigation. (Para 18) |
| 8. cited precedents inapplicable to facts. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 9. substantial questions answered against plaintiffs. (Para 27) |
| 10. second appeal allowed, trial decree restored. (Para 28) |
JUDGMENT:
P.B. BALAJI, J.
1.Defendants 2 to 13, aggrieved by the reversal findings rendered by the Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai, in A.S.No.68 of 2011 dated 03.02.2017, setting aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.14 of 2008 dated 13.12.2010, on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai, are the appellants herein.
2.The above Second Appeal was admitted by this court on 30th August 2017, on the following substantial questions of law:
“1.Whether the observation made i
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
