Panchali, v. Ranganayagi
Case brief
What is this about?
Discussed title and possession of ancestral property. Held plaintiffs failed to prove title or physical possession. Distinguished Supreme Court precedents on possession. Dismissed second appeal.
What did the court decide?
Second appeal dismissed with costs.
What the court decided
S.A.No.639 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 25.06.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 19.07.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
S.A.No.639 of 2007
1.Panchali 2.Palanivel 3.Parvathy 4.Boobalan ... Appellants Vs. 1.Ranganayagi 2.Dhayalan ... Respondents
Prayer :- Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree of the Additional Subordinate Court, Tindivanam, dated 29.01.2007, in A.S.No.116 of 2005, reversing the Judgment and Decree of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tindivanam, dated 27.07.2005, in O.S.No.138 of 1998.
For Appellants : Mr.P.Srinivasan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Udayakumar
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower appellate Court was right in holding that the plaintiffs were not in actual physical possession given the written statement and Ex.B2?
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of injunction in the absence of the defendants establishing a better title?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Panchali
- appellant
Palanivel
- appellant
Parvathy
- appellant
Boobalan
- respondent
Ranganayagi
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court