P. JANARDHANA RAO. versus KANNAN AND ORS.

P. JANARDHANA RAO. versus KANNAN AND ORS.

Obstructionists failed to prove possession prior to filing of the ejectment suit; property tax and other evidence established occupation only from 1989. High Court erred in dismissing the decree holder's application. Executing court order allowing removal of obstruction was correct.

Parties
Appellant: P. Janardhana Rao; Respondent: Kannan; Respondent: Krishnan; Respondent: Raji
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No. 1664 of 1998 / Appeal From Madras High Court's Dismissal of Miscellaneous Petition No. 600 of 1991
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Execution of Decrees, Obstruction in Possession, Order 21 Rule 97 CPC
Civil Procedure Execution of Decrees Obstruction in Possession Order 21 Rule 97 CPC

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P. Janardhana Rao

Appellant

Kannan

Respondent

Krishnan

Respondent

Raji

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No. 1664 of 1998 / Appeal From Madras High Court's Dismissal of Miscellaneous Petition No. 600 of 1991

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether obstructionists proved possession prior to filing of ejectment suit
  2. 2 Whether removal of obstruction under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC was justified

Ratio Decidendi

Obstructionists failed to prove possession prior to filing of the ejectment suit; property tax and other evidence established occupation only from 1989. High Court erred in dismissing the decree holder's application. Executing court order allowing removal of obstruction was correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment and order of the High Court set aside
  • Order of the executing court restored