Kuppusamy v. Muthusamy
Case brief
What is this about?
In a second appeal, the High Court of Madras allowed the appeal, holding that the lower appellate court misconstrued sale deed recitals and a Commissioner's report. The court restored the trial court's decree regarding the location of a cart track on disputed land.
What did the court decide?
Judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court set aside; judgment and decree of the trial Court restored.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.11.2019
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
S.A.No.166 of 2014
- Kuppusamy 2. Sengottaiyan 3. Iyannan Venkatachalam[Died on 2/8/2013] 4. Jeyamani
- Kanimozhi 6. Shanthi (Cause title accepted vide order dated 29.01.2014 made in M.P.No.1 of 2013 in S.A.SR.No.96602 of 2013) ..Appellants
Vs.
- Muthusamy
- Chinnapapa
- Kanagaraj
- Muthusamy ..Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 02.02.2013 in A.S.No.28 of 2011 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari, Salem District against the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2011 in O.S.No.48 of 2008 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Sankari, Salem District.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the First Appellate Court was incorrect in interpreting Evidence Exs.A-1 and B-1 relating to the cart track?
Whether the lower appellate court misinterpreted the Commissioner's report and sale deed recitals regarding the lie of the cart track?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Kuppusamy
- appellant
Sengottaiyan
- appellant
Iyannan Venkatachalam
- appellant
Jeyamani
- appellant
Kanimozhi
- appellant
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court