Second Appeal S.A.No.899 of 2012 was dismissed for default as the learned counsel for the appellants reported no instructions from the client. The case was heard via video conferencing.
Second Appeal dismissed for default; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
S.A.No.899 of 2012
Lakshmi (died)
1.Ganesan 2.Gunasekaran 3.Rajamanickam 4.Sundararajan4.Kodeeswari .. Appellants/Appellants/Plaintiffs
Vs.
1.Sampoornam
2.K.Chelliah .. Respondents/Respondents/Defendants
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C
against the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2012 in A.S.No.65 of
2011 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Salem,
confirming with the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.69 of
2005 on the file of II Additional District Munsif Court, Salem
dated 30.03.2011.
For Appellants: Mr.T.R.Rajaraman
(The case has been heard through video conferencing)
The learned counsel for the appellants reports no
instructions from his client.
2. Recording the above submission, this Second Appeal is
dismissed for default. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-II)
// True Copy //
Sub Assistant Registrar
rpl
To
1.The II Additional Sub Judge, Salem.
2.The II Additional District Munsif, Salem.
PA(CO)
B.VC (26/10/2021)
S.A.No.899 of 2012
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Lakshmi (died) 1.Ganesan 2.Gunasekaran 3.Rajamanickam 4.Sundararajan 4.Kodeeswari
1.Sampoornam 2.K.Chelliah
M. Govindaraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court