Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SOWRASHTRA VIPRA SABHA versus THE NAMAKKAL MUNICIPALITY AND ANR.

Decided
4 November 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 391 · 1996 INSC 1279

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant.

p. 391, margin F

This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the learned single Judge of the High Court of Madras, made on September l, 1996 in SA. No. 2235/83.

p. 391, margin G

The appellant had filed a suit for declaration of title and for perpetual injunction. The contention raised by the appellant was that the property being an estate he has perfected his title thereto. The case of the respondents is that it is a Pavadi land and after the abolititon of the estate, it stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances. All the courts below have concurrently found that the appellant has no title to the property but he was in possession of the property. Accordingly, a direction was given to have him ejected in accordance with law. After the judgment was rendered by the High Court, the notice was given to the appellant on September 1, 1995 and they refused to receive the notice. As a result, on 2.9.1995, notice was served on the appellant by affixture and possession thereof was taken on 9.9.1995 under the provisions of Section 339(2) of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Act. Thus the land stood vested in the State after due ejectment by the appellant. It is stated that it is the part of the public bus stand at the site in question and that the public passenger buses enter through it. A plan was filed in that behalf marking in red the portion which is part of the bus stand. Under these circumstances, we do not think that it is a case warranting interference.

pp. 391–392, margin G

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. R.P. Appeal dismissed.

p. 392, margin C