Selvamariammal vs Kanagavel
In Meenakshi v. Vennila and another, supra, the learned
Single Judge of this Court held:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.46 seconds)Documents citing
Meenakshi vs Vennila on 6 September, 2008
Radhammal vs Baskar on 7 July, 2014
In the decision of this Court reported in 2008 (5) CTC 181 (Meenakshi vs. Vennila and another), in para-4, it was held as follows:
B.Manimurugan vs K.S.Krishna on 19 April, 2017
(i) 2008 (5) CTC 181 (Meenakshi v. Vennila and another);
Kalaiselvan vs Gunaseeli
18.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the Judgment
passed by this Court in the case of Meenakshi v. Vennila and another reported in
2008 (5) CTC 181, which reads as follows:
Selvi vs Dharmapuri Hale Sunnath Jamath on 31 August, 2021
(iii)Judgment of this Court reported in 2008 (5) CTC 181, (Meenakshi
Vs. Vennila and another);
Selvi vs Dharmapuri Hale Sunnath Jamath on 31 August, 2021
(iii)Judgment of this Court reported in 2008 (5) CTC 181, (Meenakshi
Vs. Vennila and another);
D.Ovvaiyar vs P.Lakshmi on 2 December, 2019
6.Mr.A.B.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner would
contend that this application for appointment of commissioner is one
3/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P(MD)(PD).No.2150 of 2013
with the object of ascertaining the factum of possession. The suit
being one for permanent injunction, it is for the plaintiff to prove
possession as required under law. The plaintiff cannot seek
appointment of commissioner to establish her possession of the suit
property. He would also rely upon a judgment of this Court in
Meenakshi vs Vennila and another, reported in 2008(5)CTC 181
wherein this Court had held that a commissioner cannot be appointed
to ascertain the factum of possession.
P.V.Saji vs C.B.Abdul Khadar on 11 October, 2022
(ii) reported in 2008 (5) CTC 81 in the case of Meenakshi vs.
Vennila and another
Bimla Gupta And Others vs Ashim And Others on 2 November, 2011
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners-
plaintiffs that local commissioner cannot be appointed to ascertain
possession of the parties over the property in dispute, as it is for the parties
to lead evidence to establish their possession. On the point he has placed
reliance upon a judgment rendered by Madras High Court in Meenakshi v.
Vennila and another 2009(5) RCR (Civil) 278 and a judgment of this
Court rendered in Vinod Kumar v. Gram Panchayat of Village Kheri
Naru and others 2008(1) RCR (Civil) 697.
V.Kamalam vs The Chairman on 27 August, 2014
(iii)Meenakshi v. Vennila and Another [2009 (1) MLJ 516], wherein in
paragraph No.9, it has been held as follows:-