Murugesan v. Nagammal
Case brief
What is this about?
The Second Appeal was dismissed for default as the learned counsel for the appellants failed to press the appeal due to lack of instructions from the appellants.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.01.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
S.A. No. 1842 of 2000
1. Murugesan
2. Sabapathi
3. Sankothi
4. Muthu
5. Padmavathy
6. Chandra
7. Velavanan
8. Jayanthi
9. Uma
10. Indira
11. Kumar
.. Appellants/
Defendants 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
Versus
1. Nagammal
2. Sekar
3. Nalini
4. Ellammal
5. Radha
6. Ramani
7. Jalsa
... 1 to 7 Respondents/Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
8. Murugesa Chettiar
9. Prakasam
10. Narayana Naidu ... 8 to 10 Respondents/2, 4, 6 Defendants
PRAYER: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the Judgment and decree made on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu in A.S.No.19 of 1997 dated 06.03.2000 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned district Munsif, Chengalpattu made in O.S.No.449 of 1984 dated 29.10.1996.
For Appellants : Mr.V.Chandrakanthan For R1-R7 : Mr.A.Ramu For R8-R10 : No Appearance
ORDER
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Murugesan
- appellant
Sabapathi
- appellant
Sankothi
- appellant
Muthu
- appellant
Padmavathy
- appellant
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court