Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.Sounthar, J
Perumal – Appellant
Versus
Palanimuthu – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of trial court findings and history of the property dispute. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. evaluation of whether easement by prescription was established by pleadings. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. reliance on historical title deeds and commissioner report to confirm prescriptive rights. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. conclusion that subsequent acquisition of alternative land does not invalidate prior prescriptive rights. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 10.11.2022 passed in A.S.No.4 of 2016 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Attur, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 23.04.2015 passed in O.S.No.27 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Attur.
J U D G M E N T
The unsuccessful defendants are the appellants.
2. The first respondent herein filed a suit seeking declaration that he was entitled to use suit cart-track for taking men, cattle, carts, etc. to his lands and for his ingress and egress. He also sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his right of user over the suit cart-track.
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
