Chokkalingam vs 5.Raman on 17 October, 2014
28.In the sixth decision reported in S.Parthasarathy v. Durai @
Govindasamy and others [2006(2) CTC 545], wherein in paragraph No.10, it
reads as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.27 seconds)Documents citing
S.Parthasarathy vs Durai @ Govindasamy on 10 March, 2006
Krishnammal vs Veerasamy Naidu on 27 October, 2006
In the case reported in 2006 (2) CTC 545 (S.Parthasarathy v. Durai @
Govindasamy), this Court has held that there was no substantial question of law
involved and hence no interference of this court was warranted. If there is no
substantial question of law involved, the Second Appeal has to be dismissed as
held by the Honourable Apex Court and there is no dispute with regard to the
said legal aspect.
K.Durai vs Valliammal on 1 February, 2007
6(f) The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent relying on 2006(2) MLJ 453 (S.Parthasarathy Vs. Durai @ Govindasamy and others), contended that in a suit for bare injunction, it is sufficient to decide as to who is in possession of the suit property at the time of filing of the suit. However, the Court cannot confine its duty only to that extent, but has also to see as to whether the plaintiff establishes prima facie right over the property. The facts of the above said case in brief are as follows:-
M.K.Moorthy vs V.A.T.Palani on 10 February, 2010
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would further contend that since the property is a natham in new S.No. 269.26, Old S.No. 147/16, measuring 0390 sq.metre, the first occupier is the owner of the land. The appellant and his predecessors and fore-fathers are in exclusive possession of the suit property and recognising their possession, natham patta No. 764, has been issued. To substantiate the same, he relied upon the decisions reported on 2006-3-L.W. 361, Muthammal (died) and another vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and another and 2006 (2) CTC 545, S.Parthasarathy vs. Durai @ Govindasamy and others, and would submit that in a suit for injunction, it is sufficient to decide as to who is in possession of suit property at the time of filing suit and establishment of prima facie right over the suit property.
Santosh Sharma vs Bses Yamuna Power Ltd on 18 March, 2026
10. Ld. Counsel for appellant/plaintiff vehemently urged that
Ld. Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit as defendant No.2
was merely a licensee in the suit property and her license
being duly terminated, the plaintiff was entitled to recover
possession of the suit property. He further submitted that a
decree of possession can be passed in a suit for mandatory
injunction and the Court is empowered to mould relief in the
facts and circumstances of the case. Reliance was placed upon
the judgements, titled as Sanjeev Kapoor Vs. Anil Kumar,
2016 (1) Civil Court Cases 568 (Delhi); Harish Chand Vs.
Rameshwar Dayal, 2008 (3) Civil Court Cases 758 (P&H); S.
Parthasarthy Vs. Durai, 2007 (1) Civil Court Cases 680
(Madras); and Rajender Bahadur Singh Vs. Prakashwati, 2023
(4) Civil Court Cases 620 (Rajasthan).
1