In this Second Appeal, the appellant counsel filed a memo reporting no instructions. As there was no appearance for the appellants, the court dismissed the appeal for default consequentialy closing the connected miscellaneous petition.
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.1199 of 2008
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.07.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
S.A.(MD) No.1199 of 2008
1.U.Ramalingam
2.Krishnakumari @ Kannammal ... Appellants -vsDuraisamy Moopanar ... Respondent
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree, dated 07.08.2008, passed in A.S.No.79 of 2007 on the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Tenkasi, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 26.09.2006, passed in O.S.No.15 of 2005 on the file of District Munsif Court, Shencottah.
_____________ Page 1 of 4_
S.A.(MD) No.1199 of 2008
JUDGMENT
When the Second Appeal was taken up for hearing on 08.07.2024, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants filed a Memo, reporting no instructions. Recording the same, the Registry was directed to remove his name and list the matter under the caption ''for dismissal'' today, by printing the name of the appellants.
09.07.2024
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No
dixit
Page 2 of 4
S.A.(MD) No.1199 of 2008
To:
Page 3 of 4
S.A.(MD) No.1199 of 2008
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dixit
S.A.(MD) No.1199 of 2008
09.07.2024
Page 4 of 4
U. Ramalingam
Krishnakumari @ Kannammal
Duraisamy Moopanar
S. Sounthar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
