Dismissed

Arumugam v. Kalimuthu

Madras HC3 Sept 2024SA/515/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the Second Appeal filed against the decree confirming the obligation of defendants to restore a destroyed B-Schedule channel. It upheld the lower courts' finding that the channel existed in revenue records but was physically destroyed, directing the defendants to restore it within three months.

What did the court decide?

Appellants' appeal dismissed; respondents directed to restore the destroyed channel within three months; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Arumugam Vs Kalimuthu — Partition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

S.A.No.515 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated :03.09.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

S.A.No.515 of 2024 and

¶7

CMP.No.16525 of 2024

¶8

Arumugam 2. Jeeva

¶9

.. Appellants

¶10

Vs.

¶11

Kalimuthu .. Respondent

¶12

PRAYER : Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.11.2023, A.S.No.18 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge at Virudhachalam confirming the judgment and decree on the Court of I-Additional District Munsiff at Virudhachalam made in O.S.No.202 of 2013, dated 21.10.2021.

¶13

For Appellants : Mr.G.Anabayachozhan For Respondent : Mr.J.Antony Jesus

¶14

J U D G M E N T

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

S.A.No.515 of 2024

¶17

The appellants have filed this Second Appeal against the Judgment and Decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam, dated 30.11.2023 in A.S.No.18 of 2022, confirming the judgment and decree of the learned I Additional District Munsif, Virudhachalam, dated 21.10.2021 in O.S.No.202 of 2013.

¶18

Heard, Mr.G.Anabayachozhan, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.J.Antony Jesus, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶19

Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the appellants/defendants 5 and 7 have preferred this appeal to declare the existence of the B-Schedule channel and to restore the same, which was destroyed by the defendants.

¶20

Before the Courts below, the plaintiff successfully established their claim. With the assistance of the Commissioner, the physical features of the property were also established. Additionally, the Village Administrative

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

S.A.No.515 of 2024

¶23

Officer (VAO) was examined and testified that, according to the revenue records, there was a channel and that it should extend to Survey No. 39. However, on the ground, the said channel was not in existence. Therefore, based on the revenue records, it was proven that the channel once existed but was destroyed, as established by the plaintiff.

¶24

As a result, the defendants are liable to restore the channel.

¶25

Accordingly, this Second appeal is dismissed as it lacks merit. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶26

The defendants are directed to restore the channel within a period of three months from the date of this order.

¶27

03.09.2024

¶28

rri Index : Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No Nutral citation: Yes/No

¶29

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No.515 of 2024

rri

The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Madras.

¶35

S.A.No.515 of 2024 and CMP.No.16525 of 2024

¶36

03.09.2024

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arumugam v. Kalimuthu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arumugam v. Kalimuthu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajamanickam Vs Ramalingam

A.C.Sarangan(died) Vs R. Usha

M.Palanisamy Vs Mrs K.Dhanalakshmi(Died), G.Sasikala

M.G.Baskaran Vs Mrs Kasturi

M.Chandrasekaran Vs G.Lyzamma

R.Ethirajan Vs N.Subramanian (Died) 1. Sundari