M.Sekar v. R.Raju
Case brief
What is this about?
Second appeal filed by respondents challenging the declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff. The Court held that the appeal is devoid of merit. The dismissal of the earlier suit by the vendor for default does not bar the subsequent suit filed by the actual buyers. No perversity found in the evidence appreciation.
What did the court decide?
Second appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
What the court decided
S.A.No.351 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.03.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Second Appeal No.351 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015
1.M.Sekar 2.S.Velvizhi
... Appellants
-Vs-
1.R.Raju 2.M.Baskar 3.Ramachandra Naicker 4.Karthikeyan 5.Sitharathan
... Respondents
Prayer : Second Appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated dated 10.02.2014 made in A.S.No.1 of 2014 on the file of 1st Additional District Judge, Tindivanam confirming the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2009 made in O.S.No.5 of 2002 on the file of District Munsif, Vanur.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a subsequent suit is barred under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. when an earlier suit involving the vendor was dismissed for default.
Whether the conclusions of fact reached by the Courts below are perversely arrived at based on the evidence on record.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
M.Sekar
- appellant
S.Velvizhi
- respondent
R.Raju
- respondent
M.Baskar
- respondent
Ramachandra Naicker
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court