In a second appeal regarding an easement claim over a cart track, this Court held that the lower Courts' decision was perverse for relying on settled Tahsildar proceedings that were quashed. The Court found the plaintiffs had an alternate track and set aside the judgment granting the injunction.
The second appeal allowed; judgments and decrees of Courts below set aside.
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: 10.07.2017
Coram
The Honourable Dr.Justice G.JAYACHANDRAN
Second Appeal No.1060 of 1999 and C.M.P.No.10648 of 1999
1.Muthammal 2.Masa Gounder 3.Chinnammal @ Kannammal 4.Jayalakshmi .. Appellants/defendants 2,7,9,10 /versus/
1.Kuppusamy 2.Palanisamy 3.Palaniammal 4.Shanmugam 5.Chinnasamy .. Respondents/1.3.4 Plaintiff & Defendants 3,6
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 12.10.1998 and made in A.S.No.100 of 1997 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.02.1997 and made in O.S.No.1618 of 1974 on the file of I Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.
For Appellants :Mr.T.R.Rajagopal, Senior Counsel for T.R.Rajaraman
For Respondents :Mr.S.Thangavel for R1 to R3 Mr.V.Sairam for R4 & R5
The appellants are the defendants 2,7, 9 and 10. The suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the enjoyment and use of the schedule mentioned cart track as right of easement by prescription and necessity was allowed by the trial Court and confirmed by the lower appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the present second appeal.
(2)Is the lower appellate Court right in relying upon the judgment and decree in Ex.A5 & A6, when an appeal against the grant of patta under Ex.B2 by the Settlement Tahsildar was pending before the Inam Abolition Tribunal and when the appeals were also allowed subsequently?
are having alternate cart track and admittedly, PW1-in his evidence has categorically stated that he is using the said alternate cart track at present. The Advocate Commissioner, who has inspected the site, has also both in-chief examination as well as cross-examination, stated that the cart track starting from the temple moving towards south and ends with the land of defendants marked as 'E' and there is no further cart track towards the property of the plaintiffs.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CCC)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
ari
To
Copy to: The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.T.R.Rajaraman, Advocate Sr. 47946 +1cc to Mr.S.Thangavel, Advocate Sr. 47989
S.A.No.1060 of 1999
SSI(CO) VR(24/8/2017)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower appellate Court was correct in granting a decree on demand of easement of necessity when an alternative cart track existed.
Whether reliance on the Settlement Tahsildar's proceedings was appropriate given that those proceedings were subsequently set aside by a higher court.
Whether the concurrent findings of the Courts below were perverse for neglecting documents and evidence showing the plaintiffs had alternate access.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Muthammal
Kuppusamy
G. Jayachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
