Title: MARY PUSHPAM V TELVI CURUSUMARY & ORS.
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO.9941 OF 2016
Dated on: 3.1.2024
Corum: HON’BLE JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH & JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Facts of the case
The appellant filed a civil complaint for declaration of title, possession, and permanent injunction against the respondents, who had previously filed a suit for the appellant’s ejectment in 1976 and lost in all courts. High Court Judgment: In the first round of litigation, the High Court ruled that the appellant had perfected her title by adverse possession of the suit property, which consisted of 8 cents of land and a house. The respondents did not appeal the decision further. Errors by the Trial and High Courts: In the second round of litigation, the Trial Court and the High Court broke judicial discipline by confining the ruling in Favor of the appellant to their homes rather than the entire land, contrary to judgement of HC.
Issues
- Whether the suit property properly absolutely belongs to the plaintiffs?
- Whether the decision of the Honourable High Court of Madras in relates to the entire 8 cents of the suit property or whether it pertains to the house
- in a portion of the suit property?
- Whether the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the entire suit
- property?
- Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?
- Whether the suit property is to be demarcated and northern boundary is put
- up as prayed for?
- What reliefs are the Plaintiffs entitled to?
In the said case the court had to address the said issued regarding the property and land of the appellants.
Court analysis and judgement
The Hon’ble SC court in the said case allowed the appeal and held that since the court was unable to appreciate the said argument of the respondents. Suit for possession has to describe the property in question with accuracy and all details of measurement and boundaries. This was completely lacking. A suit for possession with respect to such a property would be liable to be dismissed on the ground of its identifiability. The court upheld the First Appellate Court’s decision, which determined that the appellant was entitled to the whole suit property. The Supreme Court stressed the relevance of the merger concept and the principles of judicial discipline.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Namitha Ramesh
