Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.37 seconds)Adimoolan Mudaliar vs P.L. Unnamalai Achi And Ors. on 14 July, 1997
In the light of the factual findings recorded by this Court as above and also in the light of the ratio laid down in the decision in Adimoolam Mudaliar v. PL.Gnnamalai Achi and Others [1997 T.L.N.J. 345], Substantial Questions of Law No.1 is answered in negative against the appellant/obstructor.
Duraisami Mudaliar vs Ramasami Chettiar And Anr. on 5 December, 1978
In Arthur Theodore James (deceased) and others v. Mrs.Hanna Rosaline and others [1999 -1-L.W.222], it was found that superstructure was put up after institution of the Suit and by placing reliance upon the judgment in Duraisami Mudaliar v. Ramasami Chettiar and another [1979-1-MLJ-380] it was held that even in cases where there was superstructure before the institution of the Suit, the judgment debtor must be directed to remove the superstructure and appropriate direction was given to the Bailiff to remove the superstructure.
G.Ganesan vs J.Surendran on 2 December, 2004
In the present proceedings, though the appellant has entered the witness box, he did not file any document and though it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that in the light of the revenue records that superstructure exists, the submission is summarily liable to be rejected for the reason that the documents relied upon held to be fabricated as per the findings rendered by the Courts below and in the judgment in G.Ganesan and Others v. J.Surendran and Others [(2005) 1 M.L.J. 191], it has been held that a petition as obstructor can be filed only if there are documents to show actual possession and if such petitions is permitted to be filed, it cannot be entertained and nothing but an abuse of process of law.
Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Bhanwari Lal vs Satyanarain And Another on 4 October, 1994
In Adimoolam Mudaliar v. PL.Gnnamalai Achi and Others [1997 T.L.N.J. 345], the question arose for consideration as to whether each occasion of obstruction and cause of action for filing application to remove obstruction and the Division Bench of this Court has taken into consideration Order 21 Rule 97 and by placing reliance upon the decision in Bhanwar Lal v. Satyanarain and another [1995 (1) SCC 6], held that each occasion of obstruction or resistence furnishes a cause of action to the decree holder to make an application for removal of the obstruction or resistence by such person.
The Right to Information Act, 2005
Munusamy vs Vengadachalam on 7 January, 2011
In Munusamy & 4 others v. Vengadachalam and 10 others [2011-1-L.W.647], the scope of Order 21 Rules 97 and 101 CPC came up for consideration and it has been held that when an obstructor objects to the delivery of possession by the decree holder, claiming independent right, the Court has to find out whether the obstructor has got any legal right to be in possession of the property and if the Court comes to the conclusion that he has got every right to be in possession of the property, the Court can pass orders to that effect and in that proceedings, the Court cannot go into the legality of the decree passed in favour of the decree holder at the instance of the obstructor and the obstructor has to prove that he has got an enforceable right or interest in the property and without proving his title or interest in the property, a third party, who is squatting on the property, cannot question the validity of the decree.
1