Chandra v. Vinayagam
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by plaintiffs challenging the dismissal of their suit for declaration and injunction. The Court held that plaintiffs failed to establish valid title to the suit property and that the lower courts correctly non-suited them.
What did the court decide?
The Second Appeal fails and is dismissed; no costs are awarded.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 17.11.2016 PRONOUNCED ON : 02.01.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN S. A.No.271 of 2011 & M.P.No.1 of 2011
1.Chandra 2.Deivayani 3.Kumaravel(since died) 4.Valli (Cause Title accepted vide order of the Court dated 02.03.2011 made in M.P.No.1 of 2011 in S.A.S.R.No.97128 of 2010)
... Appellants/Appellants/Plaintiffs (Cause Title accepted vide order of the Court dated 02.03.2011 made in M.P.No.1 of 2011 in S.A.S.R.No.97128 of 2010) Vs. Vinayagam ... Respondent/Respondent/ Defendant Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and decree dated 20.04.2010 made in A.S.No.4 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madurantakam confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 05.02.2007 made in O.S.No.143 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurantakam.
For Appellants : Mr.M.S.Subramanian
For Respondent : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs have in this Second Appeal impugned the Judgment and decree dated 20.04.2010 made in A.S.No.4 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madurantakam confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 05.02.2007 made in O.S.No.143 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurantakam.
2.The suit has been laid by the plaintiffs for declaration and mandatory injunction and permanent injunction.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiffs failed to establish valid title to the suit property due to discrepancies in vendor documents and lack of possession?
Whether the rival title set up by the defendant's wife rendered her a necessary party that the plaintiffs failed to implead?
Whether the impugned judgment dismissing the suit for non-suit on failure to prove title was correct?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Chandra Deivayani Kumaravel
- respondent
VINAYAGAM
Coram
T.Ravindran
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court