This disposal dismissed second appeals regarding property disputes over a common pathway. The Court held that the lane was shared, not exclusive, and found no hindrance caused by the respondents' property modifications, ruling no interference with lower courts was warranted.
Second Appeals dismissed with no costs.
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: 20.10.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
Second Appeal Nos.833 and 841 of 2016
and
C.M.P.No.16258 of 2016
Second Appeal No.833 of 2016
1. Rathinam
2. Mani ... Appellants/Defendants 1&3
vs.
1. Rathinasamy
2. Radha
3. Kala
4. Kumutha
5. Vijaya
6. Gomathi ... Respondents/Plaintiffs/
Defendants5,6,2 & 4
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against
the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2016 in A.S.No.48 of 2015 on
the file of Principal Sub Court, Erode, confirming the decree
and judgment dated 25.06.2015 made in O.S.No.606 of 2009 on the
file of II Additional District Munsif, Erode.
Second Appeal No.841 of 2016
1. Mani
2. Rathinam ... Appellants/Plaintiffs
vs.
1. Rathinasamy
... Respondents/Defendants
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2016 in A.S.No.47 of 2015 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Erode, confirming the decree and judgment dated 25.06.2015 made in O.S.No.100 of 2009 on the file of II Additional District Munsif, Erode.
For Appellants in both the Appeals : Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran
COMMON JUDGMENT
The defendants 1 and 3 in O.S.No.606 of 2009 and the plaintiffs in O.S.No.100 of 2009 are the appellants herein. The appellants as the plaintiffs filed their suit for bare injunction restraining the defendants from putting up any doorways, windows and sunshades facing the suit B-Schedule property and thereby causing any disturbance to their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the same. Whereas the respondents herein as the plaintiffs filed their suit in O.S.No.606 of 2009 against these appellants seeking for the relief of declaration to declare the very same B-schedule property as a common pathway; for injunction restraining the appellants herein from in any manner putting a wall in the B-schedule property and for mandatory injunction directing the appellants herein to remove the grill gate installed in front of the B-schedule property and also to remove the wall in the eastern side adjoining wall of A- schedule property.
that B-schedule lane is a common lane meant for the use of appellants and the respondents and therefore, the appellants cannot seek any exclusive right over the same.
-s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar vsi To 1. The Principal Subordinate Judge, 2. The II Additional District Munsif, Erode. +1 cc to Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy & Kaithamalai kumaran Advocate sr 59257
Second Appeal Nos.833 and 841 of 2016
msm(co) aa21/11/2016
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the disputed B-schedule lane is exclusive property of the appellants or a common pathway.
Whether doors, windows, and sunshades placed by respondents in their own property obstruct the appellants' access to theirs.
Whether substantial question of law arises warranting interference with concurrent findings of lower courts.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rathinam and others
Rathinasamy and others
K. Ravichandrababu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
