The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellant challenging the dismissal of his suit claiming easementary rights. The Court held that the issues were purely factual with no debatable questions of law, causing the appeal to lack merit.
The second appeal is 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.469 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
S.A(MD).No.469 of 2020
Natarajan ... Appellant/Appellant/Plaintiff
Vs.
Vellaisamy Nadalvar (died)
1.Ponnusamy Nadalvar (died)
(R6 and R7 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased first respondent vide Court order dated 31.03.2022 made in C.M.P(MD).Nos.1683 and 1684 of 2022 in SA(MD).No.469 of 2020)
8.K.Gayathri .. Respondent No.8
(R8 is brought on record as LR of the deceased 5th respondent vide Court order dated 31.03.2022 made in CMP(MD).No.1683 and 1684 of 2022 in SA(MD).No.469 of 2020)
Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2019 made in A.S.No.47 of 2016 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Palani, by confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2016 passed in O.S.No. 115 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif, Palani.
S.A(MD).No.469 of 2020
For Appellant : Mr.P.Santhoshkumar For Respondents : R1, R5 -died Mr.M.P.Senthil (for R2 to R4, R6 and R7)
JUDGMENT
This second appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The plaintiff is the appellant herein. He had filed a suit claiming easementary rights in O.S.No.115 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palani. He had filed a suit for declaration and for mandatory injunction. The declaratory relief sought for by the appellant/plaintiff is to declare that he has got easementary rights. He has also sought for a mandatory injunction to direct the respondents/defendants to demolish the wall erected by them, which has blocked his easementary rights. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that no documentary evidence was produced by the appellant/plaintiff to prove that he is entitled for the pathway measuring 3ft.,/48 ft., (measuring a total extent of 144 sq.ft.,) adjoining the window, which the appellant/plaintiff claims has been blocked by the construction of the compound wall by the respondents.
2/5
S.A(MD).No.469 of 2020
S.A(MD).No.469 of 2020
debatable issues of fact or law involved and therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is no substantial questions of law involved in this second appeal and there is no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the Second Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
16.03.2023
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Rmk To
1.The Subordinate Judge, Palani. 2.The District Munsif, Palani. 3.The Record Keeper, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madurai High Court, Madurai.
S.A(MD).No.469 of 2020
ABDUL QUDDHOSE.J.,
Rmk
S.A(MD).No.469 of 2020
16.03.2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the second appeal requires adjudication of substantial questions of fact or law.
Whether the appellant has discharged the burden of proving easementary rights over the disputed pathway.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Natarajan
Vellaisamy Nadalvar
Ponnusamy Nadalvar
Janaki
Maheswari
Ramachandiran
Abdul Quddose
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
