Perumal v. Kuppu
Case brief
What is this about?
Second appeal by defendants challenging concurrent findings that the plaintiff, who purchased property from the first defendant in 1985, proved absolute ownership despite an incorrect survey number in the sale documents. The High Court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal.
What the court decided
S.A. No.639 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
S.A.No.639 of 2024
1.Perumal 2.Ganesan
3.Sivamurugan
4.Venkatesan
... Appellants
Vs
Kuppu
... Respondents
PRAYER : Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and decree passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Tindivanam in A.S.No.1 of 2019 dated 16.08.2023 in confirming the decree and judgment passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Gingee in O.S.No.70 of 2013, dated 21.09.2017.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second appeal raised any substantial question of law against concurrent findings that the plaintiff proved ownership despite a wrongly mentioned survey number.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Perumal
- appellant
Ganesan
- appellant
Sivamurugan
- appellant
Venkatesan
- respondent
Kuppu
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court