Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.Sounthar, J
Mannu Kounder – Appellant
Versus
Subramaniyan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case background and conflicting judicial findings on possession. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. failure to prove possession through valid documentation regarding poramboke land. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
J U D G M E N T
The unsuccessful defendants in the suit are the appellants. The respondent herein filed a suit for bare injunction. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. On appeal filed by the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court and granted decree for permanent injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants have come before this Court.
2. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the appellants/defendants are his relatives. The 1st defendant is his brother. The 2nd defendant is the son of 1st defendant and the 3rd defendant is the wife of 1st defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that he owned property on the east and south of the suit S.No.26/4, which is a Paattai Poramboke. He purchased the property situated on the north of the suit property in S.No.42/2B from one Padmanaban on 19.04.2010. The said Padmanaban enjoyed the suit property along with his property on the Northern Side. At the time of selling the
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
