REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

N. NATARAJAN Appellant

V/S

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

GADDAM PARAMASIVUDU V. MULAKALA SUBBANNA [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN SINGH VS. KARTAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR LAL CHOPRA VS. RAI BAHADUR RAO RAJA SETH HIRALAL [REFERRED TO]
K VENKATARAMIAH VS. A SEETHARAMA REDDY [REFERRED TO]
PRATIVA DEVI VS. T V KRISHNAN [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH SINGH VS. NATTHU SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SHRISHT DHAWAN VS. SHAW BROTHERS [REFERRED TO]
S P CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU VS. JAGANNATH [REFERRED TO]
SACHIDA NAND SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
SATYA GUPTA ALIAS MADHU GUPTA VS. BRUESH KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
RAGAVENDRA KUMAR VS. FIRM PREM MACHINARY AND CO [REFERRED TO]
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE WAKF BOARD HYDERABAD VS. ALL INDIA SHIA CONFERENCE BRANCH A P [REFERRED TO]
MOLAR MAL DEAD VS. KAY IRON WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. RAJENDRA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MAHAVIR SINGH VS. NARESH CHANDRAS [REFERRED TO]
BHARATHA MATHA VS. R VIJAYA RENGANATHAN [REFERRED TO]
DINESH KUMAR VS. YUSUF ALI [REFERRED TO]
MEGHMALA VS. G NARASIMHA REDDY [REFERRED TO]
SHALIMAR CHEMICAL WORKS LTD VS. SURENDRA OIL AND DAL MILLS REFINERIES [REFERRED TO]
JABALPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. V V SHRIVASTAVA [REFERRED TO]
MALAYALAM PLANTATIONS LTD VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. IBRAHIM UDDIN [REFERRED TO]
ANISETTI BHAGYAVATHI VS. ANDALURI SATYANARAYANA [REFERRED TO]
CHAPALA CHINNABBAYI VS. NARALASETTI ANUSAUYAMA [REFERRED TO]
P V SUBBA RAJA VS. S S NARAYANA RAJA [REFERRED TO]
SANGAWWA VS. SHANKARAPPA [REFERRED TO]
MEMBER SECRETARY VS. JVS EDUCATIONAL TRUST, REP BY ITS TRUSTEE C. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. DHANNI [REFERRED TO]
PARSOTIM THAKUR VS. LAL MOHAR THAKUR [REFERRED TO]
SURJIT SINGH VS. GURWANT KAUR [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.20 of 2002 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tambaram is the appellant herein. The respondent is the defendant in the suit. The said suit was filed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. By decree and judgment dated 29.07.2005, the learned District Munsif decreed the suit as prayed for. As against the same, the respondent preferred an appeal in A.S.No.32 of 2009 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tambaram. By decree and judgment dated 30.08.2011, the learned Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal, set aside the decree and judgment of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit. Challenging the same, the appellant is before this Court with this second appeal.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:

(3.) In the written statement filed by the defendant, it is admitted that the "Commercial Printing Employees Cooperative Industrial Housing Society Limited" formed an approved layout in LPN DTP No.100/51 at S.No.189/1 and 190/2A in Chitlapakkam Village. It is also admitted that Plot No.28 measuring an extent of 1433 sq.ft. belongs to the plaintiff. But the 1000 sq.ft. of land which is situated on the north of Plot No.28 has been earmarked as road as per the approved layout. The defendant, being the custodian of the road, has got every right to maintain the same. The plaintiff has got no right whatsoever over the same and he is not in the possession of the said property measuring 1000 sq.ft. Though it is claimed by the plaintiff that pattas have been issued by the revenue authorities for Plot No.28 and the road portion, the pattas are not true. Thus, the defendant objects to the grant of decree in respect of 1000 sq.ft. of land which is situated on the north of Plot No.28.

Click here to view full judgment.

N. NATARAJAN Vs. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address