kuppayee v. B. Anjali
Case brief
What is this about?
This second appeal challenged concurrent findings that a pathway was a common lane, not exclusive to the plaintiffs. The High Court found no perversity in the trial and appellate courts fact-finding relying on evidence, dismissal of the appeal.
What did the court decide?
The second appeal and connected miscellaneous petition were dismissed; no costs awarded.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.10.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
Second Appeal No.188 of 2015 and MP No.1 of 2015
1.Kuppayee 2.Yovaan ... Appellants/Plaintiffs
vs. B.Anjali ...Respondent/Defendant
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode dated 30.09.2013 in A.S.No.35 of 2013 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Additional District Munsif, Erode in O.S.No.678 of 2011 dated 18.03.2013.
For Appellants : Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondent : Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan J U D G M E N T
The appellants are the defendants. The respondent filed the suit for bare injunction restraining the defendants either from putting up any well or any obstacles in the B schedule property or interfering with her user of the same.
2.The case of the plaintiff is that the 'B' schedule property is a pathway only through which she can have access to her property conveyed under Ex.A1 assignment. On the other hand, the defendants claimed the 'B' schedule pathway as their exclusive property and therefore, contended that the plaintiff cannot have any right of access through such property.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the courts below were correct in holding the 'B' schedule property to be a common lane based on the Commissioner's Report without examining the commissioner.
Whether the courts below erred in ignoring Ex.A.1 and Ex.B.2 which the appellants claimed showed no common lane.
Whether a permanent injunction decree could be granted without ascertaining the nature of the plaintiff's right as an easement when title is with the defendants.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Kuppayee and Yovaan
- respondent
B.Anjali
Coram
K.Ravichandranbabu
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court