Dismissed¶88

Ragupathy v. Selvaraju(Died)

Madras HC16 Apr 2025CRP/3344/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal dismissed; substantial question of law not admitted; Section 100 CPC; Section 115 CPC; civil revision petition; additional documents; I.A.No.131 of 2016; A.S.No.79 of 2012; O.S.No.137 of 2009; declaration and recovery of possession; Principal Subordinate Court Vridhachalam; III Additional District and Sessions Court Cuddalore; Madras High Court; N. Senthilkumar J.; 16-04-2025.

What did the court decide?

As the Second Appeal was not admitted on any substantial question of law, and the jurisdiction of the Court to go into the merits is not permitted as per Section 100 CPC in such circumstances, it was not incumbent on the Court to delve into the merits of the case. ¶86

Ragupathy Vs Selvaraju(Died) — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CRP No. 3344 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16-04-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶6

CRP No. 3344 of 2017 and SA NO. 567 of 2017 and CMP NO. 14146 of 2017,

¶7

CRP No. 3344 of 2017:

¶8

RAGUPATHY S/o Kuzhandaivel Pillai, Vandikkara Street, Vasishtapuram Village, Thittakudi Taluk, Cuddalore District ..3rd Petitioner/3rd Appellant/Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Selvaraju (died) S/o.Kumarasamy 1. Chithra D/o Selvaraj

¶11

2.PAZHANIVEL S/o Selvaraj (Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Residing At Vandikkara Street, Vasishtapuram Village, Thittakudy Taluk, Cuddalore District. 3.MANIMEGALAI W/o Veerasamy Kilimangalam ..Respondents 1 to 4/Respondents 1 to Village And Post, Thittakudi 4/Respondents Taluk, Cuddalore District

¶12

4.JAYARAMAN

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

CRP No. 3344 of 2017

¶15

S/o Kuzhandaivel Pillai

¶16

5.EKANATHAN

¶17

S/o Kuzhandaivel Pillai,

¶18

6.NATARAJAN S/o.Kuzhandaivel Pillai,

¶19

7.ANANDAN S/o Thangaraju

¶20

8.RAJESWARI

¶21

W/o Subramanian All Are At Valasarawakkam, Chennai

¶22

9.SURESH S/o Subramanian

¶23

10.Kannan @ Anandakannan S/o Subramanian

¶24

11.MURALI S/o Subramanian

¶25

12.ANBU

¶26

S/o Subramanian

¶27

..Petitioners 1,2,4 to 10 /Appellants 1,2,4 to 10/Respondents

¶28

SA No. 567 of 2017:

¶29

1. RAGUPATHY

¶30

S/o Kuzhandaivel Pillai, Vandikkara St, Vasishtapuram Village, Thittakudi Tk, Cuddalore Dt ..3rd Plaintiff/3rd Appellant/Appellant

¶31

¶32

SELVARAJU S/o Kumarasamy,

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

CRP No. 3344 of 2017

¶35

2.CHITHRA D/o Selvaraj

¶36

3.PAZHANIVEL

¶37

S/o Selvaraj

¶38

R1 To R3 Are At Vandikkara St, Vasishtapuram Village, Thittakudy Tk, Cuddalore Dt

¶39

4.MANIMEGALAI

¶40

W/o Veerasamy, Kilimangalam Village

¶41

And Po, Thittakudi Tk, Cuddalore Dt^{..Defendants 1 to 4/Respondents 1 to}

¶42

4/Respondents

¶43

5.JAYARAMAN

¶44

S/o Kuzhandaivel Pillai

¶45

6.EKANATHAN

¶46

S/o Kuzhandaivel Pillai

¶47

7.NATARAJAN

¶48

S/o Kuzhandaivel Pillai

¶49

8.ANANDAN

¶50

S/o Thangaraju Rep By His Power Agent And Mother Tmt.Manimozhi W/o Thangaraju, R5 To R8 Are At Vandikkara St, Vasishtapuram Village, Thittakudy Tk, Cuddalore Dt

9.Tmt.Rajeswari

W/o Subramanian

10.SURESH

S/o Subramanian

11.Kannan @ Anandakannan

¶56

S/o Subramanian

¶57

12.MURALI

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP No. 3344 of 2017

S/o Subramanian

13.ANBU

S/o Subramanian

R9 To R13 Are At Valasarawakkam, Chennai. ..Plaintiffs 1,2,4 to 10/Appellants 1,2,4 to 10/Respondents

¶64

Prayer in CRP No. 3344 of 2017: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of CPC against the judgement and decree in IA NO 131 of 2016 in AS NO 79 of 2012 dated 22.11.2016 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge Cuddalore, Vridhachalam.

¶65

Prayer in SA No. 567 of 2017: This Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC., against the Judgement and Decree in AS NO.79 of 2012 dated 22.11.2016 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore, Vridhachalam confirming the Judgement and decree in OS NO.137 of 2009 dated 31.03.2011 on the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Vridhachalam.

¶66

CRP No. 3344 of 2017 For Petitioner: Mr.P.Ganesan for M/s.C.S.Associates For R1 to R3: Mr.R.Muralidharan For R4 to R12: Given up

¶67

S.A.No.567 of 2017

¶68

For Appellant: Mr.P.Ganesan for M/s.C.S.Associates For R2 to R4: Mr.R.Muralidharan For R5 to R13: Given up

¶69

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶70

CRP No. 3344 of 2017

¶71

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶72

The unsuccessful plaintiff who lost the suit before the trial Court as well

¶73

as the First Appellate Court had preferred this Second Appeal in S.A.No.567 of 2017.

¶74

2.This Court had issued notice to the respondents/defendants. The Civil Revision Petition was filed by the plaintiff as against the order passed in IA.No.131 of 2016. Originally, the suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration

¶75

and recovery of possession. The trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, had dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Challenging the same, an appeal was filed in A.S.No.79 of 2012 and the same was dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Challenging the

¶76

same, the present Second Appeal was filed.

¶77

3.During the pendency of the appeal, an application in I.A.No.131 of

¶78

2016 was filed by the revision petitioner seeking to receive additional

¶79

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶80

CRP No. 3344 of 2017

¶81

documents. When the plaintiff had lost the case before the trial Court and the

¶82

First Appellate Court, the application was filed by the revision petitioner for

¶83

marking of additional documents in I.A.No.131 of 2016 and there is no legal bar in challenging the said A.S.No.79 of 2012. As this Court has not admitted the second appeal on any substantial question of law and the jurisdiction of this Court to go into the merits of the case, if any, is not permitted as per Section

¶84

100 of CPC. When the plaintiff has lost the case before the trial Court and the

¶85

First Appellate Court and in the absence of this Court admitting the second

¶86

appeal on any substantial question of law, it is not incumbent on this Court to delve upon the merits of the case.

¶87