Search Judgments

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Mandatory injunction – This Second Appeal was filed against the judgment and decree which partly reversed the original court’s decision. The plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction, seeking to restrain the defendants from constructing on a pathway and to remove existing constructions obstructing the plaintiff’s access to the road.

The plaintiff claimed a right of pathway based on long usage, while the defendants argued the land was government poramboke land used for a school building with government approval. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting both injunctions.

National Highways Act, 1956 – Section 3A and 3G; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – This case involves appeals by a landowner seeking enhanced compensation for land acquired for the National Highways Department (NHAI) under the National Highways Act, 1956. The land was acquired in two phases. The initial compensation was fixed at Rs. 398 per sq.

Civil Procedure Code 1908 Section 96 – Denied Negligence – This case originates from a complaint filed by the plaintiff, a frequent flyer with the defendant airline, regarding hair found in a sealed food packet served during a flight. The plaintiff claimed this incident caused him nausea and stomach pain, leading him to seek compensation of Rs. 11,00,000/-. The airline, while expressing regret, denied negligence and attributed the issue to the catering service (Ambassador Pallava) or potential contamination after the packet was opened.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order VII Rule 11 and Section 151; Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 – Section 37(1) – This case originated from O.S.No.97 of 2019, where the plaintiffs, two brothers and two sisters, sought partition of property, claiming to be the children of M.Devaraj through his second wife. The defendants, including Devaraj’s first wife and her daughters, contested the plaintiffs’ claim and filed I.A.No.2 of 2019 under Order VII Rule 11 and Section 151 of CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint based on res judicata and non-compliance with Section 37(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 regarding court fees.

The trial court allowed I.A.No.2 of 2019 and rejected the plaint. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in considering documents beyond the plaint’s averments and in determining the legitimacy of the plaintiffs’ claim without proper evidence.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 6, 13 & 14; Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 60 – This case concerns a dispute over property originally settled by Pichandi Padayachi in favor of Ramalinga Padayachi and Dhanakodi Ammal via a settlement deed dated 06.10.1933. The plaintiff, daughter of the donees, sought declaration of title, injunction, and recovery of possession, contending that Ramalinga Padayachi had no right to alienate the property beyond his lifetime, as per the settlement deed. The 11th defendant/appellant, who purchased the 7th item of the suit property from a subsequent purchaser, claimed the suit was barred by limitation and asserted adverse possession. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court reversed the decision, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff.

Terms and Conditions for Unit Run Canteen  –  Mandatory Injuction – This case concerns the termination of a plaintiff who was working as a salesman at a Unit Run Canteen (URC). The plaintiff challenged the termination order, arguing that it violated the principles of natural justice because no proper inquiry was conducted, and no charges were framed against him. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed this decision, ruling in favor of the plaintiff.

The defendant appealed, arguing that the plaintiff should have pursued an appellate remedy within the service rules and that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 63, 68 & 69; Indian Succession Act – Section 63(g); Code of Civil Procedure – Order XVI Rule 10 – This case concerns a suit for partition and permanent injunction, where the plaintiffs claimed inheritance rights following the death of Karae Gowder, arguing he died intestate. The defendants, however, contended that Karae Gowder executed a registered Will in favor of the second defendant. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, directing the division of the property into three equal shares.

The defendants, appealing the trial court’s decision, argued that the Will’s genuineness was not properly considered due to the lack of a specific issue framed regarding it.

Adverse possession – Sale Agreement – This case involves two appeals (A.S.No.538 and A.S.No.539 of 2016) stemming from two original suits (O.S.No.152 of 2011 and O.S.No.172 of 2012) that were tried together due to intertwined issues. The core dispute revolves around the title and possession of a property initially owned by Natarajan.

The appellant (plaintiff in O.S.No.172/2012 and defendant in O.S.No.152/2011) claimed title based on an agreement of sale in favor of his father and subsequent adverse possession. The 1st respondent (plaintiff in O.S.No.152/2011 and defendant in O.S.No.172/2012) asserted ownership through a registered sale deed (Ex.A1) from Natarajan.

Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (TNRRRLT Act, 2017) – Section 4(2) and 21(2)(a) – This case involves a challenge by tenants against eviction orders passed by the Rent Court and affirmed by the Rent Tribunal. The landlord initiated proceedings under Section 21(2)(a) of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017, citing the tenants’ failure to enter into a tenancy agreement as mandated by Section 4(2) of the same Act.

The tenants contested the eviction, disputing the landlord’s title and claiming they paid rent to him merely as an agent of the previous owner. They also argued that the landlord’s notice to vacate did not comply with Section 4(2) of the Act.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 96 read with Order 41 Rules 1 and 2 – This appeal suit was filed against the Trial Court’s judgment, which decreed the original suit in favor of the plaintiff, granting the relief of specific performance based on a sale agreement.

The plaintiff claimed the defendant agreed to sell property for Rs. 15,00,000, receiving Rs. 10,00,000 as advance, but later refused to execute the sale deed.