Pal Thangam, v. Roselet
Case brief
What is this about?
Second appeal against reversal of a trial court decree in a property suit. With no representation for the appellant on two consecutive listings, the appeal was dismissed for default with no order as to costs.
What the court decided
S.A.No.1448 of 2003
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
S.A.No.1448 of 2003
Pal Thangam ... Appellant/1st Respondent Plaintiff Vs. 1. Roselet 2. Snegamani ... Respondents 1 and 2/ Appellants/Defendants 5 and 6 3. Chellammal 4. Nesaiyan 5. Chelladurai 6. Kamalammal 7. Nesamony ... Respondents 3 to 7/ Respondents 2 to 6/ Respondents 2, 3, 4,7 & 8
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the decree and judgment in A.S.No.59/99 dated 18.11.2002 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, reversing the decree and judgment dated 22.03.1999 made in O.S.No.322 of 1984 by the learned Additional District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram.
1/4
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Pal Thangam
- respondent
Roselet
- respondent
Snegamani
- respondent
Chellammal
- respondent
Nesaiyan
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court