V.R.Muthu v. the Tahsildar
Case brief
What is this about?
The learned counsel stated possession was not disturbed. The Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC was dismissed as not pressed. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
What did the court decide?
Second Appeal dismissed as not pressed; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
S.A.No.649 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008
V.R. Muthu
...Appellant/Appellant/Plaintiff
Vs.
1.The Tahsildar, Egmore Taluk, Chetpet, Chennai.
2.State rep.by The Inspector of Police, R-5, Police Station, Chennai.
3.Anandaraj 4.K.Selvam 5.M.Elangovan 6.E.Arumugam 7.K. Natarajan 8.Samathanam ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree of the learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 12.09.2007 in A.S.No.574 of 2005 as confirmed by the learned III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 31.01.2005 in O.S.No.1296 of 2000.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
V.R. Muthu
- respondent
The Tahsildar, Egmore Taluk, Chetpet, Chennai
- respondent
State rep.by The Inspector of Police, R-5, Police Station, Chennai
- respondent
Anandaraj
- respondent
K.Selvam
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court