Kasi v. T.a.Ramasamy
Case brief
What is this about?
Second appeal dismissed for failure to substantiate substantial questions of law. Court upheld dismissal of suit for non-joinder of necessary parties and noted prior findings did not support appellant's claim regarding a cart-track.
What did the court decide?
Second Appeal dismissed with no costs.
What the court decided
S.A. No. 1370 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
S.A. No. 1370 of 2013
Kasi ... Plaintiff/ Appellant
Vs.
T.A.Ramasamy ... Defendant /Respondent
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2011 made in A.S. No. 148 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional Sub Judge, Salem, confirming the judgment and decree dated 18.06.2010 made in O.S. No. 676 2001 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Salem.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Jayaprakash For Respondent : Mr.B.Vasudevan
J U D G M E N T
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether dismissing the suit due to non-joinder of necessary parties and failure to establish a substantial question of law on the cart track is correct.
Whether findings regarding the existence of a cart-track in earlier proceedings were correctly brushed aside by the Lower Appellate Court.
Whether other owners of land in Survey No. 33 were rightly held to be necessary parties to the suit.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Kasi
- respondent
T.A. Ramasamy
Coram
R.N. Manjula
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court