Second Appeal against a judgment decreeing damages for demolition of a compound wall. The Madras High Court found no ground or substantial question of law to interfere and dismissed the appeal.
Examined Second Appeal challenging damages award; appeal dismissed with no order as to 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.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 31.01.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
S.A.(MD)No.35 of 2017 and C.M.P.(MD)No.829 of 2017
1.Lawrance
2.Vincent
.. Appellants/Respondents 1&2/ Defendants 2 & 5
Vs.
Anushammal .. Respondent/Appellant/Plaintiff
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 11.06.2004 made in A.S.No.39 of 2001, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram, modifying the judgment and decree dated 29.07.1999 in O.S.No.784 of 1993, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram.
For Appellants : Mr.T.Arul
JUDGMENT
Challenging the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.39 of 2001, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram, modifying the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.784 of 1993, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram, the defendants 2 and 5 have filed the above Second Appeal.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. It is pertinent to note that the defendants have not challenged the decree passed by the trial Court with regard to the
2
permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. Hence, the same has become final. So far as the payment of compensation of Rs.12,750/- is concerned, the plaintiff averred that the defendants 2 and 5 demolished the compound wall and therefore, they are liable to pay the sum of Rs.12,750/- as damages. Exs.A.6 and A.7 would also establish that a complaint was lodged with the police against the defendants 2 and 5 with regard to the demolition of compound wall. Since the plaintiff had established that the defendants 2 and 5 have demolished the compound wall, the lower Appellate Court rightly came to the conclusion that the defendants 2 and 5 are liable to pay a sum of Rs.12,750/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. as damages to the plaintiff.
Assistant Registrar(CSI)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
ssl
To
Padmanabhapuram.
JAM/09.02.17/CM-MSA/ 2p-3c
S.A.(MD)No.35 of 2017 31.01.2017
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Subordinate Court committed an error in awarding damages for demolition of compound wall.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Lawrance & Vincent
Anushammal
M.Duraismamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
