S. Navaneetham v. Nalini
Case brief
What is this about?
Second appeal dismissed. No substantial question of law found. Parties owning different shares in suit property cannot be restricted from using suit Well to irrigate other lands if covenants were not reiterated in subsequent sales conveyances.
What did the court decide?
Second appeal dismissed; appellant not entitled to restrain respondent from irrigating other lands using suit property.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 28.03.2018
PRONOUNCED ON : 04.04.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
S.A.No.243 of 2018
1. S.Navaneetham
2. S.Kumaresan
3. P.Vasantha
4. P.Kirija
5. S.Suki ... Appellants
Vs.
Nalini ... Respondent
Prayer :- Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgement and Decree dated 26.04.2016 passed in A.S.No.17 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Vaniyambadi, partly modifying the Judgment and Decree dated 29.04.2014 passed in O.S.No.129 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ambur.
For Appellants : Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan For Caveator : Mr.D.Venkateswara Rao
JUDGMENT
This second appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants are entitled to restrain respondent Nalini from irrigating her other lands using the suit Well and pumpset.
Whether the right to draw water for irrigation of lands outside the suit property was binding on subsequent owners of different shares.
Whether the second appeal raises any substantial question of law meriting acceptance.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
S. Navaneetham
- appellant
S. Kumaresan
- appellant
P. Vasantha
- appellant
P. Kirija
- respondent
Nalini
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court