In this Second Appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeal after finding no substantial question of law. The appellant failed to prove possession of the suit property, a necessary condition for the grant of a bare injunction, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 11.11.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
Second Appeal No. 384 of 2016
M.Vasantha
..Appellant/Plaintiff
-Vs-
The Commissioner, Ranipet Municipality, Ranipet.
..Respondent/Defendants
Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2015 made in A.S.No.74 of 2012 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, confirming the decree and judgment in O.S.No.84 of 2003 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Ranipet, dated 29.02.2012.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Bhiman For Respondent : Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram J U D G M E N T
The appellant is the plaintiff in a suit for bare injunction. She lost before both the Courts below as she failed to establish her possession over the suit property for the grant of relief of injunction.
the plaintiff is not entitled to any indulgence. Accordingly, the Second Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
+1 cc to M/s.S.Siva shanmugasundaram,advocate,sr.65704
sai(co)
krd 2/1
Second Appeal No.384 of 2016
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a substantial question of law arises from the concurrent finding of courts below that the plaintiff failed to prove possession.
M.Vasantha
The Commissioner, Ranipet Municipality
Kravichandrabaabu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
