Natesan v. Thangamani
Case brief
What is this about?
The appellants failed to provide instructions to counsel despite a reminder. The court noted the plaintiff was enjoying the cart tract as confirmed by lower courts. The second appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
What the court decided
S.A.No.1140 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :05.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
S.A.No.1140 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009
1.Natesan 2.Dhanapackiam ... Appellants
Vs
1.Thangamani 2.Palani Muthu @ Rajamanickam 3.Chandrasekaran 4.Selvaraj
5.Pachaiammal
... Respondents
PRAYER : Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 02.04.2009 made in A.S.No.161 of 2008 on the file of Subordinate Court, Rasipuram, confirming the decree and judgment dated 18.07.2003 made in O.S.No.151 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court , Rasipuram.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the concurrent findings of the Courts below regarding the plaintiff's enjoyment of the cart tract are sustainable?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Natesan
- appellant
Dhanapackiam
- respondent
Thangamani
- respondent
Palani Muthu @ Rajamanickam
- respondent
Chandrasekaran
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court