Madras High Court
Chand Usmani vs G.Francis on 20 February, 2019
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 25.07.2018
PRONOUNCED ON : 20.02.2019
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
Second Appeal(MD)Nos.111 and 112 of 2018
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.2755 and 2756 of 2018
Chand Usmani : Appellant in both appeals
-Vs-
1.G.Francis
M.Pandy
2.P.Parvathiammal
3.Panchavarnam
4.Perumal
5.Ponniah
6.S.Anthony Samy : Respondents in both appeals
Prayer in S.A.(MD)No.111 of 2018: Second Appeal filed under
Section 100 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, to set aside the
judgment and decree dated 04.10.2017 passed in A.S.No.25 of
2011 on the file of III Additional Sub-Court, Madurai, confirming
the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2010 passed in O.S.No.116
of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurai.
Prayer S.A.(MD)No.112 of 2018: Second Appeal filed under
Section 100 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, to set aside the
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
judgment and decree dated 04.10.2017 passed in A.S.No.26 of
2011 on the file of III Additional Sub-Court, Madurai, confirming
the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2010 passed in O.S.No.116
of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurai.
For Appellant :Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram
(in both appeals) Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Kumar
For R3 to R6 :Mr.J.Bharathan
***
COMMON JUDGMENT
The appellant, in the above second appeals, is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.116 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurai.
2.The appellant herein, as plaintiff filed the above suit for declaration of his title over the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit property was described as a vacant site measuring 646 sq.ft., (37 1/2 x 17 1/2). The plaintiff claimed title under a registered sale deed dated 07.07.1985. The suit was http://www.judis.nic.in 3 contested and the trial Court originally decreed the suit as prayed for and the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.18 of 2004 before the III Additional Sub Court, Madurai.
3.It is stated that before the appeal could be moved, the plaintiff put up a shed in the open space on the western portion, which is the subject matter of the dispute with cement blocks and iron sheet. In view of the subsequent developments during the pendency of suit, the first defendant filed an additional written statement seeking counter claim for removal of the illegal construction put up by the plaintiff in the disputed property during the pendency of the appeal by way of mandatory injunction. It was thereafter, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to the trial Court and thereafter, the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed and the counter claim preferred by the first defendant in the suit was allowed. As against the judgment and decree in the suit in O.S.No.116 of 2003, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.25 of 2011 before the III Additional Sub Court Madurai. Similarly, as against the decree in the counter claim in O.S.No.116 of 2003, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.26 of 2011 before the III Additional Sub Court Madurai. Both the appeals were dismissed http://www.judis.nic.in 4 by the lower appellate Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred the above second appeal in S.A(MD)No.111 of 2018 as against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.25 of 2011 and second appeal in S.A(MD)No.112 of 2018 as against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.26 of 2011.
4.The case of the plaintiff in the suit is as follows:
4.1.The suit property described in the plaint belongs to the plaintiff by virtue of a sale deed dated 07.07.1985. The suit property has been described as an extent of 646 sq ft. with a measurement of 37 ½ feet East-West and 17 ½ Feet North-
South. The suit property has been shown as vacant land. The defendants are the neighbours of the plaintiff and they have also constructed their house, which are situated on the south side of the plaintiff's house. The plaintiff and the defendants had purchased the house site from the same owner and put up their respective houses in the respective plots. The plaintiff put up a house measuring 27½ feet East-West and 17 ½ feet North-South. The plaintiff has left some space on the western side of the plot measuring 10 feet East-West and 17 ½ feet North-South. In the year 1997, when the plaintiff made arrangement to construct a http://www.judis.nic.in 5 compound wall in the vacant land belongs to the plaintiff, the defendants who have no manner of right prevented the plaintiff from constructing the compound wall in the suit property. Hence, the defendants should be restrained by granting a decree of permanent injunction.
5.The first defendant filed a written statement specifically denying the averments in the plaint. It is admitted by both the parties that originally the entire property belonged to one Lakshmi Ammal and her son D.Devasss. The said Lakshmi Ammal and her son S.Devasss, sold the property in plots through their power of attorney agent, one O.Chokkanathan. The first defendant also purchased the southern side plot of the plaintiff's house site with measurement 42½ feet East-West and 24 feet North-South on 20.12.1985. In the sale deed obtained by the defendants, it has been stated the the first defendant should leave 10 feet on the western side of the plot out of the property purchased by him for the purpose of road. Therefore, it is contended by the first defendant that he left 10 feet east-west and 24 feet north-south on the western side of the plot for using as road. It is further stated that the defendants 2 and 3 have also purchased the property situated on the southern side of the first http://www.judis.nic.in 6 defendant's plot from the same owner under two registered sale deed, dated 01.06.1985 and 08.11.1985 respectively measuring 49 feet East-West and 20 feet North-South respectively. It is also stated that even in the sale deed obtained by the defendants 2 and 3, they are asked to leave a space of 10 feet on the western side of their respective plots. It is the specific case of the first defendant that not only the defendants, but also all the persons, who have purchased the plots on the northern side of the plaintiff's plot, were asked to leave 10 feet on the western side of their respective plots, so as to form a road for the common enjoyment of the purchasers of the plot from the owners of the land by name, Lakshmi Ammal and her son S.Devasss.
6.In the written statement, it is further stated that the plaintiff constructed a house after leaving a space of 10 feet on the western side of her plot, so that 10 feet on the western side will be available for the defendants to have access to their land through 10 feet road. It is also stated that if a compound wall is constructed by the plaintiff, the defendants cannot go to their houses. Since the defendants and their vendors are using the road to have access to reach the main road from their respective houses, the defendants contended that they have a right of http://www.judis.nic.in 7 easement.
7.As indicated earlier, the first defendant also filed an additional written statement explaining in detail, how the other plots are located and the position that the defendants have access only through the common passage that is available on the western side of the plots. Since the vendors of the plaintiff and defendants directed every purchasers to leave 10 feet wide space on the western side portion of their respective plots, it is contended that all the plot owners have left 10 feet common pathway on the western side of their respective plots and enjoyed the common passage for all purposes. Since there was no alternative pathway, the first defendant also raised a plea of easement by necessity. It is also the case of the first defendant that there has been an inadvertent omission in the sale deed obtained by the plaintiff to leave 10 feet width space on the western side of the plot for the common pathway. It is also the case of the first defendant that taking undue advantage of the inadvertent error, the plaintiff has come forward with the present suit claiming right over the common pathway, which was to be left by every plot owners for the purpose of having access to the northern side road from every plot. It is further stated in http://www.judis.nic.in 8 the written statement that there is a septic tank in front of the first defendant's house and the water overflowing from the septic tank passes through a pipe line laid under a depth of 3 feet below the ground level to reach the municipal drainage system, through the common pathway space in front of the house of others. In the additional written statement, it is stated that the existing pipeline runs through the 10" pathway in front the every plot as underground pipeline.
8.The first defendant in the written statement has referred to the specific features of the suit property and the manner by which 10 feet common pathway was being enjoyed by the defendants. Since the plaintiff is also using the common passage on the northern side of his house, it is alleged that the intention of the plaintiff denying such right to the defendants is malafide and the plaintiff is not entitled to equitable relief of injunction. It is further sated in the additional written statement that the plaintiff with ulterior motive, hurriedly, put up a shed in the suit property on 28.01.2004 with cement blocks and iron sheets leaving only some space about 2 ½ feet for others. It is in these circumstances, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit and to allow the counter claim praying for a decree of mandatory http://www.judis.nic.in 9 injunction directing the plaintiff to demolish and remove the newly constructed shed put up by her in the disputed pathway. The plaintiff also filed a reply statement denying the averments made in the additional written statement and disputed the enjoyment and entitlement of the defendants to seek counter claim.
9.Before the trial Court, the plaintiff examined herself as PW-1 and examined two other witnesses, PW-2 and PW-3. On behalf of the plaintiff, documents Ex-A1 to Ex-A9 were marked. On the side of the defendants, first defendant examined himself as DW-1 and examined one Baskaran as DW-2. The defendants marked Ex-B1 to Ex-B30. The trial Court, after framing necessary issues, found that the plaintiff has purchased the suit property as per the sale deed under Ex-A1, dated 07.07.1985. However, after referring to document Ex-A1 and the submission of the Counsel for the plaintiff, the trial Court found that there is no recital in the sale deed, Ex-A1, to the effect that the plaintiff has to leave 10 feet pathway and accepted the case of the defendants that 10 feet space has been left by every plot owners for using the same as common pathway for the benefit of purchasers of the plot on the northern side and the southern http://www.judis.nic.in 10 side of the suit property. In this regard, the trial Court considered the documents Ex-B3 to Ex-B6 and Ex-B16 to Ex-B18 executed by the same vendor through their power of attorney agent. Since the plaintiff during the examination admitted the existence of all eight houses having the common passage on the western side of the plot, the trial Court found that the original owner Lakshmi Ammal and her son S.Devass, have sold the plots to all the eight persons requesting them to leave a space of 10 feet on the western side of their plots. It is also admitted that on the northern side of the suit property, the vendors have already left 10 feet on the further west of the western side property sold to the other persons on the northern side.
10.After careful analysis of all the documents and admission of the plaintiff during the cross examination about the enjoyment of the property all along by the plaintiff and other owners, the trial Court found that the defendants are having right of pathway on the western side of the suit property measuring 10 feet East-West and 17 ½ feet North-South and that it is the only pathway available for the defendants to have access from their respective houses to reach the main road on the northern side of the suit property and other plots. It was further http://www.judis.nic.in 11 held that the defendants are also having right of easement of necessity over the common pathway including the suit property.
11.Having regard to the specific findings, the trial Court has also held that the plaintiff is not entitled to permanent injunction in respect of 10 feet East-West and 17 ½ North-South in the western portion of the suit property over which the defendants have their right of common passage. The trial Court also considered the counter claim with reference to the admitted facts. Having regard to the admitted position that the construction was put up by the plaintiff after the suit and during the pendency of the appeal, the trial Court held that the first defendant is entitled to decree for mandatory injunction as per the counter claim. As stated earlier, the plaintiff in the suit preferred appeals in A.S.No.25 and 26 of 2011 as against the dismissal of the suit and the decree in the counter claim respectively.
12.The appellate Court also confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court, specifically holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to the decree for injunction as the 10 feet on the western side of the plaintiff's plot is used as common passage by http://www.judis.nic.in 12 relying upon the admission of plaintiff during the cross examination and the Advocate Commissioner's report. The appellate Court also found that the first defendant is entitled to exercise the right of easement in view of the finding that the 10 feet East-West and 17 ½ feet North-South on the western portion of suit property is held to be a common passage for the plaintiff and the defendants. Before the appellate Court, the Counsel for the plaintiff also raised a legal issue as to the maintainability of counter claim. This legal submission was answered against the plaintiff and the lower appellate Court ultimately dismissed the appeal after considering the entire evidence on record apart from the admission of plaintiff and the submission of counsel on both sides on every issue. Aggrieved over the same, the above second appeals have been filed.
13.In the memorandum of grounds in both appeals, the learned Counsel for the appellant raised the following substantial questions of law:
“1.Whether Courts below are right in dismissing the suit by wrong interpretation of the sale deed of the plaintiff marked as Ex-A1?
2.Whether Courts below are right in holding that http://www.judis.nic.in document writer to Ex-A2 was committed mistake by not 13 showing to leave 10 feet on the western side of the plot covered under Ex-A1 for pathway without examining the document writer and the vendor?
3.Whether the Courts below are right in allowing the counter claim for mandatory injunction to remove the construction made within the extent mentioned in Ex-A1, by the plaintiff by wrong interpretation of Ex-A5, Ex-A6 and Ex-B6?
4.Whether the first appellate Court is right in declaring the disputed 10 feet as common pathway without any prayer and payment of necessary Court fee therefor by the defendants?”
14.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the trial Court has erroneously held that the suit property is the property in which the plaintiff and the defendants have right. The finding of the trial Court that the first defendant is entitled to use the passage by easement of necessity, is therefore contradictory. It is submitted that a person, who claims ownership over the property is not entitled to claim easement. It is also submitted that the first defendant, who has pleaded easement of necessity cannot claim the entire property of 10 feet x 17½ feet and a person whose right of easement, is recognised due to necessity cannot claim right over the entire 10 feet, as an extent of 2 to 3 feet is sufficient for anyone, to have access to the http://www.judis.nic.in 14 main road on the north. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon the recital of document Ex-A1, namely the sale deed, by which the plaintiff purchased the property. From the sale deed, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that the western portion of the property purchased by the plaintiff under Ex-A1 is referred to as common pathway. Since the suit property has been specifically purchased by the plaintiff under Ex-A1 and there is no recital to leave any space on the western side of the plot to be used as a common passage, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the pathway that was referred to in the sale deed, Ex-A1 is only the common passage that is available on the further west of the suit property. It was suggested by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the case of the defendants is contrary to the document of title deed, Ex-A1 and the plaintiff is not obliged to leave 10 feet passage for the common enjoyment of all the plot owners, when the original owner has not reserved any such right.
15.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant http://www.judis.nic.in 15 also raised the following substantial questions of law apart from the substantial questions of law raised in the memorandum of grounds in S.A.(MD)No.111 of 2018:
1)Whether the 1st appellate Court is correct in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff by holding that disputed 10 feet on the western side of the plaintiff's house is a common pathway when there is no pleadings and evidence on record?
2)Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in declaring the disputed 10 feet as common pathway without considering the scope of remand by the 1st appellate Court in the earlier round?
16.The first additional substantial questions of law raised by appellant is not appropriate, as there is specific pleadings and the issue has been answered with reference to various documents and the oral evidence of witnesses. In such circumstances, the first additional substantial question of law has no substance. Regarding the second additional substantial question of law, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has not advanced any arguments, by referring the order of remand. Two more additional substantial questions of law were also raised regarding the maintainability of counter claim without the prayer for declaration regarding easement or proprietary right over the disputed common passage. However, http://www.judis.nic.in 16 no serious arguments were advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant.
17.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has also relied upon the documents, by which the first defendant and other defendants purchased the properties. One of the documents is the sale deed under Ex-B4, executed by the original owner in favour of the defendants 2 and 3, wherein, western side of the property purchased by them also is shown as 10 feet road. It was pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that even in this document, there was no reference to the suit common passage. However, this property is the plot on the extreme south sand therefore, the failure to describe the 10 feet pathway in this document may not have much significance as no other person need to use. However, from the description of property purchased by the first defendant and all the northern plot owners, would certainly indicate that the original owner wanted every purchasers to leave the 10 feet passage as a common pathway to all the purchasers who have purchased the plots from them. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, of course, is right in his submission that the sale deed, Ex-A1, cannot be ignored. http://www.judis.nic.in 17 When the plaintiff has purchased the plot without reference to suit common passage as per the title under Ex-A1 is not disputed, the plaintiff cannot be deprived of his title to the extent of land conveyed under Ex-A1. However, the question in this case is not about the title of plaintiff. The defendants have claimed a right of easement on the ground that a 10 feet width pathway was intended to be left by the original owners for the benefit of the purchasers of individual plots, so that they can have access through a 10 feet pathway to reach the main road on the northern side. Irrespective of the fact whether the plaintiff has title to the property or not, the Court can recognise the right of easement, by holding that the western 10 feet of pathway on the western portion of the suit property is a common pathway being enjoyed by the purchasers of plot on the southern side.
18.In this case, there is no dispute that the plot owners on the northern side of the suit property have left the common passage of 10 feet from the property purchased by them from the original owners. As a matter of fact, every sale deed obtained by the northern owners indicates that the owner has requested them to leave 10 feet passage on the western portion of the land, http://www.judis.nic.in 18 sold to them to be kept as a common passage for the benefit of plot owners as well as the others, who will also enjoy the common pathway to have access to the main road. It is also admitted that the original owner has also provided another 10 feet pathway on the further west of the property conveyed by him under various sale deeds. As a result, all the northern owners are enjoying the benefit of 20 feet road for their free access to reach the main road from their property. However, the problem started only when the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff. On the West of the suit property, a 10 feet pathway is referred to even in the document Ex-A1. However that pathway is not available and it is admitted that there is a construction just on the western side of the suit property. Hence, absolutely there is no way for the defendants, if the entire 10 feet western portion of the property is blocked by the plaintiff. In this regard, the admission of plaintiff during the cross examination is relevant.
19.The plaintiff has categorically admitted that all the 5 plot owners on the northern side have left 10 feet space out of the western portion of the property purchased by them. So every plot owners except the plaintiff has put up a construction leaving http://www.judis.nic.in 19 10 feet on the western side within the property purchased by them from the original owner. Except the sale deed under Ex-A1, in all other documents, the original owners have specifically made a condition that 10 feet on the western portion of the property conveyed to them should be kept for the common passage for the benefit of all the plot owners. Though this document, Ex-A1, does not contain a recital, which is similar to other sale deed, the contention of the defendants that this particular clause was omitted inadvertently is probable and both Courts have accepted the case of the first defendant after elaborately dealing with the issue and after considering not only the documents, but also the admission of plaintiff during the cross examination. The plaintiff during the cross examination has categorically admitted that while putting up a construction over the plot purchased by her, she has left the 10 feet on the western portion of the plot. Similarly, she also admitted that all the plot owners have left 10 feet space on the western portion of their construction. The plaintiff has also admitted the position during the cross examination, in the following lines:
“gpujpthjpfs; ,lj;jpy; Nkw;Nf 10 mb ghijf;fhf tplg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;Wk;> vd; gj;jpuj;jpy; vOj tpl;Lg;Ngha;tpl;ljhy; ehd; vdf;F me;j ,lj;ij http://www.judis.nic.in 20 jdpj;jghj;jpak; vd;W ,t;tof;fpy; thjpLfpNwd; vd;why; rhpay;y. ehd; thq;Ftjw;F Kd;ghfNt 2>3 gpujpthjpfs; 10 mb ghijtopahf ele;J goq;fptUfpwhh;fs; vd;why; rhpjhd;. ehd; Ntyp Nghl;Litj;j gpd;Gk;> gpujpthjpfs; mijf; fow;wptpl;L i\ ghijtopahfj;jhd; ele;Jnfhs;fpwhh;fs;. jhth gijapy; vg;NghJk; gpujpthjpfs; nghJg;ghijahfj;jhd; gad;gLj;jptUfpwhh;fs; vd;why; rhpay;y. jhth ghijiaj; jtpu gpujpthjpfSf;F NtW ghij fpilahJ vd;why; mij mth;fisj;jhd; Nfl;fNtz;Lk;. jhth ghijia milj;jhy; gpujpthjpfs; Kdpahd;bNfhtpy; njUTf;F NghfKbahJ vd;why; rhpjhd;.”
20.Therefore, from the evidence of PW-1, it is evident that 10 feet common passage, namely, the western portion of the property is being enjoyed as a common pathway by all and that the defendants have no other way to have access to the main road on the northern side. It is also relevant to point out that the plaintiff's husband has also admitted during the cross examination that western 10 feet of all 8 plots were reserved for pathway, which reads as follows:
“Nkw;gb 8 tPLfSf;Fk; Nkw;Fg;gf;fk; jhd; thry; vd;W nrhd;dhy; rhpjhd;. Nkw;gb 8 tPLfSf;Fk; Nkw;Nf jhd; ghij cs;sJ vd;W nrhd;dhy; rhpjhd;. Nkw;gb 8 tPLfSf;Fk; xNu rh;Nt ek;gh; jhd; vd;W nrhd;dhy; rhpjhd;.”
21.In the above circumstances, the conclusion of the lower Courts that the western 10 feet in the suit property is a common passage is perfectly valid. Merely because, the plaintiff has http://www.judis.nic.in 21 established her title regarding the entire 37 ½ feet East-West that does not mean that the plaintiff can obstruct the defendants from enjoying the western 10 feet as a common passage which is available to them by easement of necessity. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court in the case of K.Kolandaisami Gounder vs. Manickam, dated 30.08.2001, wherein, it has been held as follows:
“.....11. When the specific right was given to use the land of the defendant only as a pathway, the defendant cannot be burdened with more obligation, and the right given under Ex.A1 can be used to the extent necessary for such enjoyment by the other sharers. In the present case, except Ex.A2 to A4, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff has not pointed out any other evidence to show as to how the 6 ft. width of pathway is necessary for them to reach the Street. As stated above, additional burden cannot be imposed on the defendant. In view of the fact that under Ex.A1 only a right of pathway has been given to the other settlees, from whom the plaintiff derived title, the defendant cannot prevent the plaintiff from enjoying such right. But, at the same time, the respondent/plaintiff also cannot claim 6 ft., width of pathway, which was not given under Ex.A1 settlement deed. Though it has been mentioned in Exs.A2 to A4, the said recitals in the said documents will not bind the defendant. Taking into consideration the abovesaid fact and also on the suggestion made at the Bar, I am of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the respondent/plaintiff can use the said pathway in the defendant's property to a width of 3 ft., instead of 6 ft., as claimed by the respondent/plaintiff, and the judgment and decree of the courts below are modified to that extent.....” http://www.judis.nic.in 22
22.The above judgment has no application to the present case, as the lower appellate Court in this case has categorically held that the defendants have the right of easement of necessity in the common pathway in the western portion of the suit property. Having regard to the description of the property in all other sale deeds and the evidence in this case, the right to the common passage measuring 10 feet East-West is absolute and the first defendant is entitled to use unobstructed passage, namely, 10 feet on western portion of the suit property as a common pathway. The recital in the document, Ex-A1, may be relevant for acknowledging the title of plaintiff over the extent of land conveyed under Ex-A1. However, the document cannot be interpreted to deprive the right of defendants to enjoy the western portion of the property conveyed under Ex-A1 as a passage and this right of easement which is a right attached to the plots of defendants cannot be curtailed on the basis of Ex-A1.
Originally, the entire property belonged to a third party. The original owner appears to have formed a lay out so that all the plot owners who have purchased the plots on the northern side and southern side of the of the suit property. Hence the substantial questions of law 1 and 2 raised in the above appeal have to be answered against the plaintiff.
http://www.judis.nic.in 23
23.In this case, it is admitted that the plaintiff put up a construction immediately after the suit was decreed at the first instance. As held by the Courts below, the plaintiff has forcibly put up a construction when the matter was pending in appeal. It is always open to the plaintiff to file a petition seeking restoration of status-quo, when something is done during the pendency of the proceedings. In this case, the first defendant was permitted to raise a counter claim at the appellate stage and the matter after remand was considered and the Courts below have allowed the counter claim on the basis of right established by the first defendant. In this case, the counter claim is based on the right of easement, which is evidence from the various documents and circumstances. The plaintiff's husband has admitted the enjoyment of pathway and the reservation of common passage for the benefit of all the plot owners. In such circumstances, this Curt is unable to see any force in any of the substantial questions of law.
24.As a result, these second appeals are dismissed and the judgment and decree in A.S.Nos.25 and 26 of 2011 passed by the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, confirming http://www.judis.nic.in 24 the judgment and decree in O.S.No.116 of 2003 and the counter claim is confirmed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes .02.2019
Internet : Yes
cmr
To
1.The III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.
2.The District Munsif, Madurai.
3.The Section Officer, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 25 S.S.SUNDAR, J.
cmr Pre-delivery Judgment made in Second Appeal(MD)Nos.111 and 112 of 2018 .02.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in