The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of the second appeal filed under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code after recording the undertaking of the respondents/plaintiffs that they had no claim on the property covered under Ex.B2 and noting that the property remains intact.
The second appeal is disposed of, there be no costs in the Second Appeal.
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.
SA(MD). No.493 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI
( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Thirteenth day of April Two Thousand Twenty Two
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.R.SWAMINATHAN SA(MD). No.493 of 2010
1 PATEL 2 KANDHASAMY 3 LEELAVATHI ...Appellants/Respondents 2 to 4/ Defendants 2 to 4
Vs
1 ANNAMALAI 2 KANNAN ... Respondent 1 & 2/Appellants 2 & 3/ Lrs of the deceased Appellants 3 MEENAL 4 ABHIRAMI ... Respondent 1 @ 2/Appellants 2 & 3/ Lrs of the deceased Plaintiff
Prayer in SA(MD)No.492 of 2010:-
The Second Appeal filed under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 13/02/2009 rendered in A.S.No.1 of 2002 on the file of the Subordinate Judge,Periakulam reversing the decree and the judgement dated27/03/2001 rendered in O.S.NO.19 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court Periakulam.
Decree:This Second Appeal came up for hearing on date, upon perusing the grounds of Appeal, the Judgement and Decree of the Lower Appellate Court and the Court of First Instance and the material papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of Mrs.J.Anandhavalli for Mr.K.Muthu Ganesa Pandian, Advocate for the Appellants and Mr.S.Manohar for the first Respondent and the third and fourth respondents are not appeared either in person or through their counsel, while this court disposing the appeal, doth order and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ decree as follows:-
1/2
SA(MD). No.493 of 2010
i) That the second appeal be and hereby is disposed of .
ii) That recording the undertaking of the respondents/plaintiffs herein that they have no claim whatsoever on the property covered underEx.B2 and after noting that the property covered under Ex.B2 remains intact in all respects on ground.
iii)That there be no costs in the Second Appeal.
Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
// True Copy //
/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
Encl:The Xerox copy of the Tahsildar's Report
TO
Copy to:
The Record Keeper,
V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai
+1 CC to M/s.K. MUTHU GANESA PANDIAN, Advocate ( SR-18914 dated 18/04/2022 )
ORDER DATED : 13.04.2022
JUDGMENT+DECREE
SA(MD).No.493 of 2010
Disposing of the SA(MD)No.493 of 2010 against the judgment and decree dated 13/02/2009 rendered in A.S.No.1 of 2002 on the file of the Subordinate Judge,Periakulam reversing the decree and the judgement dated 27/03/2001 rendered in O.S.NO.19 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court Periakulam.
SG(CO)
TR(13.06.2022) 2P 6C
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second appeal filed under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code should be disposed of after the undertakings of the respondents and noting the status of the property.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Patel Kandhasamy Leelavathi
Annamalai Kannan
G.R. Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
