Karthik v. Mari Chetti
Case brief
What is this about?
In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court of Madras dismissed the appeal for default since counsel for the respondents informed the court that the parties had settled the matter and jointly sold property.
What did the court decide?
The second appeal was dismissed for default.
What the court decided
S.A.No.687 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
S.A.No.687 of 2013 & M.P.No.1 of 2013
Karthik ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Mari Chetti 2.Dhoori Chetti 3.Maheswari ... Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2010 in A.S.No.9 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Mettur confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2010 in O.S.No.93 of 2005 on the file of the District
Munsif Court at Mettur.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Sekar For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.J.Ramakrishnan For Respondent 3 : Ms.Mahamandra Rajalakshmi
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Karthik
- respondent
Mari Chetti
- respondent
Dhoori Chetti
- respondent
Maheswari
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court