K. Ramu v. Thirumalai
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court of Madras dismissed the second appeal confirming lower court judgments. The court held that no infirmity existed in concurrent findings that the disputed property was part of land already adjudicated in a pending partition suit involving the appellant's mother.
What did the court decide?
Second appeal dismissed; judgment and decree of lower courts confirmed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 16.12.2016
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
S.A.No.914 of 2016 and CMP No.18521 of 2016
K.Ramu ... Appellant/Plaintiff Vs. 1. Thirumalai 2. Duraikannu ... Respondents/Defendants Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code as against the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2014, passed in A.S.No.116 of 2013, on the file of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2011, passed in O.S.No.149 of 2011 on the file of the XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. For Appellant : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan For Respondents / Caveators : Mr.R.G.Annamalai JUDGMENT
The unsuccessful plaintiff, who lost before the Courts below has come forward to file the second appeal by framing the following substantial questions of law.
"1. The courts below having accepted that plaintiff is in possession of the suit property, whether the suit can be dismissed by the Courts below stating that possession of the plaintiff is not lawful. 2. The plaintiff having filed evidence of possession is not entitled for injunction to protect his possession.
- Whether the plaintiff can be non suited for relief of injunction by misreading earlier legal proceedings.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the second appeal should succeed given the appellant failed to advance fresh substantial questions of law.
Whether the suit property being part of land already subject to a preliminary decree in a pending partition suit warrants dismissal.
Whether the binding effect of a prior dismissed injunction suit against the appellant's mother justifies non-interference.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
K.Ramu
- respondent
Thirumalai
- respondent
Duraikannu
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court