The High Court dismissed a second appeal challenging an injunction decree. The court held that no substantial question of law arose to warrant interfering with the concurrent judgments of the lower courts granting injunction against trespass.
Second Appeal dismissed; no orders 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
S.A.NO.815 OF 2008
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.11.2004 made in A.S.No.54 of 2004 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Ooty, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 21.06.2004 made in O.S.No.89 of 2002 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Coonoor.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Girish
JUDGMENT
The unsuccessful defendants before the Courts below are the appellants before this Court. The parties are referred to in the litigative status in which they had been referred before the learned District Munsif, Coonoor in O.S.No.89 of 2002.
The plaintiff had filed the suit for a bare injunction in respect of the properties measuring an extent of 1.47.91 Hec.
comprised in R.S.No.70/4, T.S.A3/5B in Coonoor Town, The Nilgiris within specified boundaries. It was the case of the plaintiff that under the Sale Deed 16.04.1958, he along with 4 others had became entitled to an extent of 38.74 and 3/4 acres in Survey No.70, Coonoor Town. There was an oral portion between the parties and under these, the plaintiff was allotted an extent of 10.75 acres which is sub divided to R.S.No.70/4. From the date of the oral partition, the plaintiff has been put in physical possession of the same. Thereafter, in the year 1970, the plaintiff and his brother had entered into an oral partition and he had been allotted the suit properties measuring an extent of 3.65 acres. The plaintiff developed the said lands into a Tea Garden and has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The lands were later assigned in a new Survey Number consequent to the re-survey and allotted T.S.No.A.3/5B. While so, the defendants, who have no semblance of right over the suit property on 20.08.2002, attempted to trespass into the properties. Their intention appears to be grab the suit properties. Therefore, the plaintiffs have come forward with the instant suit.
Decree of the trial Court. Challenging the same, the appellants are before this Court.
In fine, the Second Appeal is dismissed, however, there shall be no orders as to costs.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mps
To
Copy To:-
The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.Srinath Sridevan, Advocate, S.R.No.28799
S.A.NO.815 OF 2008
PVS(CO) PBS/15/11/2021
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Second Appeal filed against the lower court's injunction decree warrants interference?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M.Melagan & Ors.
N.Joghee Gowder
P.T.Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
