This second appeal was dismissed. The Madras High Court held that the appeal involved factual issues which were correctly decided by courts below based on evidence establishing the respondents' entitlement to easementary rights for accessing a graveyard.
Second Appeal dismissed. No 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.
S.A(MD).No.418 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 17.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
S.A(MD).No.418 of 2022
P.Ruban .. Appellant/Appellant/Defendant Vs. 1.Rajarethinam 2.P.Thankaraj .. Respondents/Respondents/Plaintiffs
Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to suspend the decree granted in A.S.No.27 of 2016 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram, dated 17.12.2018 confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.202 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, dated 29.04.2016.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Krishna Sreethar For Respondents : Mr.N.S.Ramakrishnadas (for R2) No representation (for R1)
JUDGMENT
This second appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The defendant in the suit is the appellant
1/6
S.A(MD).No.418 of 2022
herein. The suit in O.S.No.202 of 2012 was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs before the Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram, seeking for declaration, claiming easementary rights for the pathway to access the graveyard. A written statement was also filed by the appellant/defendant in the trial Court denying the contention of the respondents/plaintiffs that they have easementary rights to use the pathway leading to the graveyard. The said graveyard is utilised by the respondents/plaintiffs to bury their family members.
S.A(MD).No.418 of 2022
available for the respondents/plaintiffs to enter into the graveyard meant for burial of their family members. The oral and documentary evidence placed on record before the trial Court confirmed the said fact. Having purchased the portion of the property from one of the brothers of respondents/plaintiffs and when it is not in dispute that there is no access for the respondents/plaintiffs to use the graveyard meant for burying the family members of the respondents/plaintiffs, the trial Court after giving due consideration to the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has decreed the suit in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs by granting the relief of easementary rights, namely, usage of the common pathway leading to graveyard utilised by the family members of the respondents/plaintiffs.
3/6
S.A(MD).No.418 of 2022
the family members is through the property purchased by the appellant/defendant under sale deed dated 28.01.2009 marked as Ex.B.2. Only after giving due consideration to all the above mentioned factors and after correctly appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial Court has decreed the suit in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs by its judgment and decree dated 29.04.2016 in O.S.No.202 of 2012.
4/6
S.A(MD).No.418 of 2022
issues, which have been rightly considered by the Courts below based on the oral and documentary evidence available on record. There is no merit in the second appeal. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
17.03.2023
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Rmk
To
1.The Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram.
2.The Additional District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram.
5/6
S.A(MD).No.418 of 2022
ABDUL QUDDHOSE.J.,
Rmk
S.A(MD).No.418 of 2022
17.03.2023
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a substantial question of law arises from factual findings regarding easementary rights for pathway access to a graveyard?
Whether the lower courts correctly appreciated evidence to grant easementary rights in favour of plaintiffs?
P.Ruban
Rajarethinam
P.Thankaraj
Abdul Qudhose
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
