In an appeal suit against a trial court judgment dismissing a partition suit, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the appellant had intentionally foregone her claim in earlier proceedings involving the same facts and relief, rendering the current suit not maintainable under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC.
The Appeal Suit is dismissed. 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
RESERVED ON : 09.11.2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 15.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
AS.NO.512 OF 2013
Latha
... Appellant/Plaintiff
Vs
... Respondents/Defendants
Prayer:- This Appeal Suit has been filed, under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 96 of CPC to set aside the judgement and decree, dated 06.04.2011, passed in OS.No.67/2009, by the District Court, Karaikal.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Sounthar Respondents : R1-Dispensed With : R2-No appearance
JUDGEMENT
decree for 1/4th share of the Plaintiff in the suit property and for mesne profits.
10.In fine, this Appeal Suit is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-IX) //True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Srcm
To
The District Judge, Karaikal.
Copy To
The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madras High Court.
+1cc to Mr.S.Sounthar, Advocate, S.R.No.17654
AS.No.512 of 2013
SS(CO) RLP(02/06/2022)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present suit is maintainable under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC given the abandonment of the same claim in earlier proceedings.
Whether the appeal against the dismissal of the partition suit should be allowed despite the bar under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Latha
Ramasamy
Sakundala
A.A.Nakkiran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
