Velayutham @ Chinnapaiyan Vs Perumayee Ammal(died) — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Velayutham @ Chinnapaiyan Vs Perumayee Ammal(died) — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Maintainability: whether the defendants, having already succeeded before the first appellate court, can be regarded as 'persons aggrieved' so as to be entitled to maintain the Second Appeal. +3 more

Court's answer

It is an admitted position that the defendants are not adversely affected by the decree of the first appellate court; Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits an appeal against a Judgment and Decree only at the instance of 'persons aggrieved', and the provision does not envisage an appeal directed merely against adverse findings when the operative decree stands in favour of the appellants.

Ratio / Principle

The possible operation of the adverse findings as res judicata in future proceedings cannot be examined on the basis of mere apprehension; whether such findings operate as res judicata would be for the court concerned in any subsequent litigation to determine, as this court cannot be called upon to decide hypothetical issues at this stage.

Key takeaways

Distinguishing Banarsi v. Ram Phal ((2003) 9 SCC 606): under the post-1976-amendment Code a respondent may challenge an adverse finding only by way of cross-objection filed within an appeal preferred by another party; in the present case the plaintiffs, though an aggrieved party, chose not to file any appeal against the first appellate court judgment, hence that citation does not advance the defendants' case, and the contention that an appeal and a cross-appeal stand on the same footing is misconceived and unsustainable.ratio¶79
Following Samikannu v. Indira Gandhi ((2009) 5 MLJ 832), which itself followed the dictum of Banarsi, an appeal against the mere findings is not maintainable; the defendants' request that this court record that the adverse finding shall not operate as res judicata is declined — no such blanket observation can be made, and in any subsequent proceedings the concerned court must consider and decide the issue on its own merits.ratio¶85

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete; reserved 08.09.2025, pronounced 08.10.2025) DISMISSED S.A. No. 173 of 2014 (connected M.P. No. 1 of 2014 closed) as NOT MAINTAINABLE, with no order as to costs. The defendants-appellants, although SUCCESSFUL before the first appellate court (Judgment and Decree dated 03.12.2008 in A.S.No.159 of 2007, Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, reversing the decree dated 20.12.2005 of the II Additional District Munsif, Salem in O.S.No.318 of 1997), appealed SOLELY AGAINST THE ADVERSE FINDINGS in that judgment concerning rival registered Wills: plaintiffs' Ex.A.8 (on which the trial court had decreed the suit) was held unproved, defendants' Ex.B.7 and Ex.B.8 were held not genuine (fingerprint expert PW5's comparisons), and devolution was directed by intestate succession. HELD (ratio): (i) S.96 CPC permits an appeal only at the instance of 'persons aggrieved' and does not envisage an appeal aimed merely at adverse findings when the operative decree favours the appellants; (ii) apprehended res judicata effects of the findings rest on mere speculation — whether they bind in any future litigation is for the court then seized of the matter, and hypothetical issues are not decided; (iii) Banarsi v. Ram Phal (2003) 9 SCC 606 DISTINGUISHED — post the 1976 amendment a respondent may attack an adverse finding only through a cross-objection within an appeal preferred by another party, and here the aggrieved plaintiffs filed no appeal at all, so the citation did not assist the defendants and the equation of appeal with cross-appeal was rejected as misconceived; (iv) Samikannu v. Indira Gandhi (2009) 5 MLJ 832 FOLLOWED — an appeal against mere findings is not maintainable; (v) the request for a blanket observation that the adverse finding shall not operate as res judicata was DECLINED. The two substantial questions framed at admission (perversity of findings on Ex.B7/B8 and Ex.A8) were left undetermined, the merits not being entered into.