Ramasamy v. Mailathal
Case brief
What is this about?
High Court dismissed second appeal in partition suit where appellants challenged confirmation of trial court decree regarding landed properties without substantial legal grounds.
What did the court decide?
Second appeal dismissed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.12.2016
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH
Second Appeal No.463 of 2016
and
C.M.P.No.7770 of 2016
1.Ramasamy
2.Rayappan .. Appellants
Vs
1.Mailathal
2.Giniyammal
3.Rayakkal .. Respondents
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2014 passed in A.S.No.114 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, partly confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2013 made in O.S.No.643 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
For Appellants .. Mr.B.Soundara Pandian
For Respondents .. Ms.Mathuvanthy Mathavan
JUDGMENT
This second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2014 made in A.S.No.114 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.
2.The appellants are defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. The suit has been laid for partition and separate possession by respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs. There are two schedules attached to the suit. The first schedule consists of two landed properties. The second schedule is a house property. The Trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. The lower appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the appellants in part insofar as the second schedule of the property is concerned, which is a house property. Insofar as the first schedule of the property is
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an unregistered partition deed (muchalika) acting as collateral evidence warrants setting aside the lower courts' judgments confirming landed property shares.
Whether the lower courts erred in applying Hindu Succession Act provisions regarding survivorship based on the presumption of death after 1956.
Whether substantial questions of law exist regarding non-joinder of purchasers and court fee computation in the absence of joint possession evidence.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Ramasamy
- appellant
Rayappan
- respondent
Mailathal
- respondent
Giniyammal
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court