Dismissed
R. Perumal (Died) v. R. Indirani
Madras HCSA(MD)/663/2010
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
of 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS…
What the court decided
AI extract
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.663 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.07.2022
CORAM : JUSTICE N. SESHASAYEE
S.A.(MD) No.663 of 2010 and M.P.(MD) No.3 of 2010
R.Perumal (Died)
P.Annaikkutti
... Appellants/Appellants/ Defendants 1 & 3
-vs-
1.R.Indirani
2.R.Ragini
... 1st Respondent/1st Respondent/ 1st Plaintiff ... 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent/ 2nd Plaintiff
3.P.Raju (Died) 4.R.Ayinan (Died) 5.R.Kamalam
... 4th Respondent/3rd Appellant/ 4th Defendant
6.R.Sivaraman
7.R.Paulraj
_________ Page 1 of 4
S.A.(MD) No.663 of 2010
8.R.Hemalatha
... Respondents 5 to 8/ LRs of the deceased R3
[Respondents 5 to 8 - suo motu brought on record as LRs of the deceased 3rd respondent vide order dated 14.03.2022 in S.A.(MD) No.663 of 2010]
9.R.Nandhakumar
10.K.Sudha ... Respondents 9 & 10/ LRs of the deceased R4
[Respondents 9 and 10 – suo motu brought on record as LRs of the deceased 4th respondent vide order dated 14.03.2022 in S.A.(MD) No.663 of 2010]
Prayer:- Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2008 in A.S.No.56 of 2002 on the file of the I-Additional Sub-Court, Trichirappalli confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2001 made in O.S.No.209 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur in allowing the suit entirety with regards to all items of suit properties. For Appellant : No appearance For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.Sundar For Respondents 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 & 10 : No appearance Respondents 7 & R8 : Unserved
_________ Page 2 of 4
S.A.(MD) No.663 of 2010
JUDGMENT
There is no representation for the appellant. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 is present. Hence, this second appeal is dismissed for default. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
06.07.2022
Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No
abr
To
Page 3 of 4
S.A.(MD) No.663 of 2010
N. SESHASAYEE, J.
abr
S.A.(MD) No.663 of 2010
06.07.2022
_________ Page 4 of 4
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R.Perumal (Died) & P.Annaikkutti
R.Indirani
R.Ragini
P.Raju (Died)
R.Ayinan (Died)
R.Kamalam
N. SESHASAYEE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court