Murugasamy v. Palanisamy
Case brief
What is this about?
Cross objection dismissed as not maintainable because it targeted passing observations (paragraph 17) rather than a decisional finding; passing observation that neither party can claim title or possession over suit property described as an irrigation pond; arises from AS No.12 of 2019 (Principal Sub Judge, Puducherry, decree dated 14.11.2019) confirming OS No.153 of 2013 (Principal District Munsiff, Puducherry, decree dated 12.04.2018); High Court of Judicature at Madras; S. Sounthar, J.; advocates C. Umashankar and R. Rajarajan.
What did the court decide?
No appeal or cross objection will lie against passing observations of the Court; since paragraph 17 of the first appellate Court's judgment contains only a passing observation, the cross objection filed by the respondent is not maintainable and is dismissed. ¶21