SOUNDARARAJ versus DEVASAHAYAM & ORS.

SOUNDARARAJ versus DEVASAHAYAM & ORS.

The High Court was not justified in setting aside judgments of the trial court and first appellate court and in remanding the matter. The appropriate course was to frame additional issues, call for findings from the trial court, and dispose of the appeal considering the findings and existing judgments.

Parties
Appellant: Soundararaj; Respondents: Devasahayam & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 October 1983
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against High Court's Review Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Review Petition, Demarcation of Property, Mandatory Injunction, Easement
Civil Procedure Review Petition Demarcation of Property Mandatory Injunction Easement

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Soundararaj

Appellant

Devasahayam & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against High Court's Review Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the review petition and setting aside not only its own judgment but also the judgments of the first appellate court and trial court, and remanding the case for fresh disposal;
  2. 2 Proper procedure for addressing disputed measurements and boundaries in property disputes;

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court was not justified in setting aside judgments of the trial court and first appellate court and in remanding the matter. The appropriate course was to frame additional issues, call for findings from the trial court, and dispose of the appeal considering the findings and existing judgments.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part.

Orders

  • Judgments and decrees of trial court and first appellate court kept intact.
  • High Court's order setting aside its own second appeal judgment is sustained.