Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. Murali Shankar, J
Padmini – Appellant
Versus
Jegadeesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of procedural history and initial facts of the injunction suit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. adherence to limits of jurisdiction under s.100 cpc in second appeals. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. necessity of declaration suit when title is disputed. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. consequences of suppressing material facts and failure to establish lawful possession. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. final confirmation of appellate findings and dismissal of appeal. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT
1.The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.20 of 2017, dated 21.03.2019, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Aranthangi, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.224 of 1999, dated 14.09.2009, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi.
2. The appellant is the plaintiff and she filed the suit in O.S.No.224 of 1999 before the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi claiming permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the par
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
