document are ambiguous or
unclear. However, the present case is one for ejectment
and thus the Trial Court rightly did not traverse beyond
the realm ... Court to have decreed the suit for
46
ejectment if the defendant had not admitted the
execution of Ex.P2 and the Court would
defendants challenging the judgment and decree of
the Courts below directing ejectment of the
defendants from the suit premises.
2. For the sake of convenience ... suit premises to
the defendants and therefore, the execution of the
judgment and decree of ejectment by the plaintiff
would be inconsequential and that
defendant which was a
sine qua non in a suit for ejectment. He contended that
the plaintiff was never the owner of the suit property ... that the plaintiff had a
15
right to present a suit for ejectment. He further contended
that the report of the Commissioner had only
Smt S R Leelavathi vs Sri K Veeresham on 16 April, 2020
Author: Nataraj Rangaswamy
