Acha v. v. Ganesan
Case brief
What is this about?
This judgment dismisses a Second Appeal and Civil Revision Petition. The court rejected claims for possession based on an unregistered mortgage deed and lack of evidence for an alleged land exchange. It also affirmed the calculated mesne profits as unchallenged and reasonable based on the Commissioner's report.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 07.03.2019 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA Second Appeal No.298 of 2007 and CRP.NPD.No.2874 of 2010
Second Appeal No.298 of 2007 :
- Acha @ Dakshinamurthy
- Mathialagan 3. Murugamani 4. Muthumani .. Appellants/Respondent/ Defendant -VsV.Ganesan .. Respondent/Appellant/ plaintiff
SECOND APPEAL filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.2 of 2005 dated 25.4.2005 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Nagapattinam, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam in O.S.No.66 of 2004 (O.S.No.247/99) on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Nagapattinam dated 27.10.2004.
For Appellants : Ms.P.Srividhya for Mr.A.Muthukumar For Respondent : Ms.V.J.Latha - - -
CRP.NPD.No.2874 of 2010: Mathiazhagan ... Petitioner/Appellant/ 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant vs. 1. Ganesan 2. Acha @ Dakshinamoorthy 3. Murugamani 4. Muthumani ...Respondents/Appellants 1,3& 4 Petitioner/Respondents1,3 & 4 Plaintiff/Defendants1,3 & 4
Civil Revision Petition filed against the fair and decreetal orders passed in C.M.A.No.2 of 2008 dated 07.04.2010 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam in confirming the fair and decreetal orders passed in I.A.No.378 of
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants are entitled to possession of the suit property based on an unregistered mortgage deed or an alleged exchange arrangement without documentary evidence?
Whether the appellants can claim adverse possession when their case is based on an unregistered mortgage deed?
Whether the mesne profits ascertained by the Advocate Commissioner are reasonable and acceptable?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Acha @ Dakshinamurthy & ors.
- respondent
Ganesan
- petitioner
Mathiazhagan
- respondent
Acha @ Dakshinamoorthy, Murugamani & Muthumani
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court