Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. Murali Shankar, J
Omanthiram – Appellant
Versus
Palanisamy – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and factual foundation of the suit for injunction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. arguments concerning the sufficiency of evidence and the appellate court's failure to address findings. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. admissibility of documentary evidence (correlation certificates) and shifting of onus of proof. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 34) |
| 4. evaluation of possession and the effect of discrepancies in survey records. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 5. the duty of an appellate court to provide reasoned analysis under order 41 rule 31 cpc. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 6. maintainability of bare injunction suits when title is not in cloud. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
JUDGMENT
1.The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.84 of 2017 dated 12.03.2018 on the file of the Additional District Court (FTC), Palani, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.580 of 2000 dated 15.10.2014 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palani.
2. The appellants are the plaintiffs. They filed the suit in O.S.No. 580 of 2000 before the Distric
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
