citedby: 1829897

K.Narayanan vs A.Amsa Ammal on 23 May, 2019

22. In this case, admittedly the second defendant had constructed a building in the suit property. So the question will arise as to whether the relief of mandatory injunction can be granted. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to the decision in http://www.judis.nic.in 22 M. Ramalingam Vs. N.Thangavelu, 1997-2-LW-35 wherein this court in paragraph Nos.18 to 21 has observed as follows:

Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - P Rajamanickam - Full Document

P.Periyannan vs M.Palanisamy on 30 August, 2019

20.On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the appellant had affixed the title roof on the common wall and that was not objected by the respondents. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of M.Ramalingam v. N.Thangavelu reported in 1997 – 2 – L.W. 35, which reads as follows:

Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - R Tharani - Full Document

P.Periyannan vs M.Palanisamy on 30 August, 2019

20.On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the appellant had affixed the title roof on the common wall and that was not objected by the respondents. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of M.Ramalingam v. N.Thangavelu reported in 1997 – 2 – L.W. 35, which reads as follows:

Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - R Tharani - Full Document

Balbir Singh & Another vs Qutubdeen & Another on 27 September, 2023

22. It was laid down by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Mohinder Pal Versus Omwati 2014 (174) Punjab Law Reporter 447 that in case of trespass on the land of others, there can be no question of acquiescence.It was observed:-

Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kamal Raj & Another vs Mehar Chand (Deceased) Through on 5 October, 2023

42. A similar view was taken in M. Ramalingam vs N. .

Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 108 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kamal Raj & Another vs Mehar Chand (Deceased) Through on 5 October, 2023

42. A similar view was taken in M. Ramalingam vs N. .

Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 108 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vijayalakshmi vs Sulochana (Deceased) on 7 October, 2010

34.However, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents cites the decision of this Court M.Ramalingam v. N.Thangavelu 1997-2-L.W. 35, wherein it is held that 'Mere silence by itself will not amount to representation unless a duty is cast on plaintiff to speak about the limits, and if so, plaintiff must be made aware of the limits of the property.'

Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - M Venugopal - Full Document

Krishnammal vs Paramasivan on 16 December, 2011

(ii) M.Ramalingam v. N.Thangavelu reported in 1997 -2- L.W.35.

Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - G Rajasuria - Full Document

Csepdi Trishe Consortium vs Tamilnadu Generation And Distribution

In this regard, he placed reliance on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in M.Ramalingam v. N.Thangavelu, 1997-2-LW-35, wherein it is held as under:

Madras High Court Cites 82 - Cited by 0 - R Sudhakar - Full Document

B. Thiagarajan And Anr. vs K. Vedantham on 21 July, 1997

... before the doctrine of acquiescence can be invoked, the lessor must have been present at the time of the actual construction and should have effectively encouraged the same. " 18. I also had occasion to consider the law on acqui-escence in a recent decision reported in M. Ramalingam v. N. Thangavelu (1997) 2 L.W. 35.

Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results