Ariyan v. Devan
Case brief
What is this about?
In a Second Appeal against a decree confirming a partition suit, the High Court found no substantial question of law to arbitrate. Both lower courts held the suit property belonged to the plaintiff and rejected the defendants' challenge. Consequently, the Second Appeal was dismissed.
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: 08.11.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
Second Appeal.No.531 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.9464 of 2016 1. Ariyan 2. Ponni 3. Raji 4. Govindaraj 5. Rajendran 6. Ravi ..Appellants/Appellants/ Defendant vs. Devan ..Respondent/Respondent/ Plaintiff Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2014 made in A.S.No.12 of 2013 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Mettur confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2012 made in O.S.No.211 of 2006 passed by the District Munsiff Court, Mettur. For Appellants : Mr.G.Arul Murugan For Respondent : Mr.J.Ramakrishnan J U D G M E N T
The appellants are the defendants in a suit for declaration, recovery of possession and permanent injunction. Both the Courts below concurrently found in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit as prayed for. Challenging such concurrent finding, the present appeal is filed before this Court which is yet to be admitted. Therefore, this Court has to see as to whether any substantial question of law arises for consideration to entertain this appeal.
- The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property situated at S.No.59/4A1 and another property situated at S.No.56 originally belonged to his grandfather Semba Gounder who had three sons namely, Ariya Gounder, Kolandai Gounder and Katha Gounder. It is is further case that after the death of Semba Gounder, partition took place between the brothers, wherein, the present suit property was allotted to the share of
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a substantial question of law arises to entertain the Second Appeal after concurrent findings of fact by Courts below in favour of the plaintiff.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Ariyan, Ponni, Raji, Govindaraj, Rajendran, Ravi
- respondent
Devan
Coram
K. Ravichandrababu
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court