In this Second Appeal, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs to set aside a judgment confirming the Municipality as the owner of the suit property and granting a permanent injunction.
The Second Appeal was dismissed with no order 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.
S.A.(MD).No.576 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
S.A.(MD).No.576 of 2022
1.Sam Chandra Mohan Singh
2.Samraj ... Plaintiffs/Appellants/ Appellants
Vs.
1.Nagercoil Municipality represented by its Commissioner, Nagercoil. ...6th Defendant/1st Respondent /Respondent
2.M.Shanmugasundaram @ Ganesan
3.Sadasivam
4.Seeniappan
5.Vishnuram
6.Sivaprakasam ...Defendants 1 to 5/Respondents 2 to 6/ Respondents 2 to 6
Prayer : Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC to set aside the Judgment and Decree made in A.S.No.71 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Nagercoil dated 28.02.2001 confirming the judgment and
1/6
S.A.(MD).No.576 of 2022
decree made in O.S.No.929 of 1995 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil dated 15.03.1997.
For Appellants : Mr.Thirunavukkarasu Legal Aid Counsel For R-3 : No appearance For R-4 and R-5 : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent findings of
the Courts below. The appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit. They had filed a suit in their representative capacity for and on behalf of the CSI church, who is the owner of the suit A schedule property.
2/6
S.A.(MD).No.576 of 2022
schedule property will get affected. Apart from seeking the relief of permanent injunction, the appellants/plaintiffs also sought for the relief of mandatory injunction to direct the respondents 2 to 6/defendants 1 to 5 to demolish the alleged unauthorized construction put up by them in the suit B schedule property.
3/6
S.A.(MD).No.576 of 2022
On the side of the respondents/defendants, 16 documents were filed, which were marked as exhibits B1 to B16 and two witnesses have also been examined on their side, namely, D.W.1 and D.W.2.
4/6
S.A.(MD).No.576 of 2022
which have been correctly considered by the Courts below based on oral and documentary evidence available on record. There are no substantial questions of law involved in this Second Appeal and therefore, there is no merit in this Second Appeal. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
21.03.2023
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Lm
To
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
S.A.(MD).No.576 of 2022
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
Lm
S.A.(MD).No.576 of 2022
21.03.2023
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent findings of the Lower Appellate Court upholding ownership of the suit property by the Municipality should be interfered with.
Whether substantial questions of law are raised in this Second Appeal.
Sam Chandra Mohan Singh & Ors.
Nagercoil Municipality & Ors.
Abdul Quddhose
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
