Second appeals filed under Section 100 CPC regarding mortgage redemption and possession recovery were dismissed without admission due to absence of substantial question of law.
Second appeals 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.
S.A.(MD)No.5 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN S.A.(MD)Nos.5 & 6 of 2010
S.A.(MD)No.5 of 2010
Maalai Thevar (Died)
Vs.
P.S.B.K.Peer Mohamadhu (Died)
... Respondent / Respondent / Plaintiff
(R-2 & R-3 were suo motu impleaded as LRs. of the deceased sole respondent vide order dated 17.02.2022 made in S.A.(MD)No.5 of 2010)
... Respondents 2 and 3
Prayer: Second appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.31 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli, dated 10.07.2009 confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.853 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, dated 04.04.2008.
S.A.(MD)No.6 of 2010
Maalai Thevar (Died)
Vs.
Mohamedhu Abdul Kaaja ... Respondent / Respondent / Plaintiff
1/3
S.A.(MD)No.5 of 2010
Prayer: Second appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.33 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli, dated 10.07.2009 confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.851 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, dated 04.04.2008.
(in both S.As.)
For Appellants : Mr.R.T.Arivukumar, for Mr.S.Yasar Arafath. For Respondents : Mr.M.P.Senthil
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
These two second appeals arise out of O.S.No.851 of 2004 and O.S.No.853 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli.
2. While the plaintiffs in the suits are different, the defendants in both the suits are one and the same. The suits were filed for redemption of mortgage and for recovery of possession. The suit were valued and Court fees were paid under Sections 30, 33 and 44 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees And Suits Valuation Act.
3. The plaintiffs examined themselves as witnesses and mortgage deeds were also marked. The Courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiffs have title over the suit property and held that the plaintiffs are entitled not only to redeem the suit mortgages but also to obtain recovery of possession. Against the concurrent findings rendered by the Courts below, these second appeals have been filed.
4. Though they have been filed way back in the year 2009, they have not been admitted till date. I do not find any substantial question of law arising for consideration. These second appeals are dismissed. No costs.
Assistant Registrar (CS-III)
// True Copy //
/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
PMU
2/3
S.A.(MD)No.5 of 2010
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To:
Copy to
The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. (2 copies)
+2 CC to M/s.M.P. SENTHIL, Advocate ( SR-16827,16828[F] dated 06/04/2022 )
+1 CC to M/s.S. YASARARAFATH, Advocate ( SR-16858[F] dated 06/04/2022 )
S.A.(MD)Nos.5 & 6 of 2010 05.04.2022
RK(12/05/2022) 3P 8C
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether substantial question of law arises in these second appeals.
Whether the second appeals admitting to consideration.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SUDAIKANNU
MUTHU
MOHAMEDHU ABDUL KAAJA
JAFFER MOHAMEED KASEEM PEER
SYED NISHA BEEMA
G.R. SWAMINATHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
