Trending :
Lawtext
Search
Login / Register
Sign In
HomeJudgement
Scroll Down To Discover
High Court

Madras High Court Decides Second Appeal Challenging Concurrent Decrees of Lower Courts. The Appeal Filed Under Section 100 of CPC Arose from Suit No.414 of 1994, and the High Court Delivered Judgment on 14 July 2026.

High Court: Madras High Court Bench: Principal
Admin
2026-09-11 07:34:49
  • 55
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Issue of Consideration

S.A. NO.162 OF 2006

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (MAD) (07) 52

S.A. No.162 of 2006

2026-07-14

R. Sakthivel

2026:MHC:2798

Ms. V. Ambika

Ramani Ammal (Died), K. Mohan, A. Baskaran (Legal Representative of deceased 1st Appellant)

Munisamy Naicker (Died), Muniammal, Rajendran, Vijaya, Minor Jaya (represented by mother Muniammal), Agilandam, Suceela (Died), A. Baskar

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Procedural History

The suit O.S. No.414 of 1994 was filed before the Additional Munsif Court, Kancheepuram, which decreed the suit on 25.02.1998. Against that, an appeal A.S. No.72 of 1998 was filed before the Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram, which confirmed the trial court decree on 19.10.2004. Thereafter, the defendants filed the present Second Appeal S.A. No.162 of 2006 under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. During pendency, some parties died and legal representatives were brought on record.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Tags :
Second Appeal Section 100 CPC Concurrent Findings Substantial Question of Law Civil Procedure Madras High Court

Pay once for this file or subscribe for unlimited downloads

Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Bank Officers in SARFAESI Act Loan Recovery Dispute. Civil Nature of Transaction Precludes Criminal Prosecution Under Sections 406, 409, 420 IPC. 2026-09-11 20:35:44
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Hyderabad Inams Abolition Case Regarding Abkari Rights. Abkari Rights Appurtenant to Inam Lands Vest in State Upon Abolition, Compensation Under Section 12 of 1955 Act Covers Such Rights. 2026-09-11 20:35:40
Categories
Popular Tags
writ petition Natural Justice acquittal murder compensation burden of proof limitation Article 226 benefit of doubt judgment
Follow Us

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensation Cases,...

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute — Upho...

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Suit for Spec...

Bombay High Court Dismisses MBBS Student's Writ Petition Seeking Fourth Attempt in Anatomy...

High Court of Bombay Hears Writ Petitions Challenging Tenancy Orders Under Bombay Tenancy ...

Supreme Court Acquits Appellant in Prevention of Corruption Act Case Due to Absence of Pec...

Supreme Court Modifies High Court Order Appointing Different Arbitrator Under Section 11 o...

Supreme Court Upholds Scrutiny Committee Invalidation of Scheduled Tribe Caste Claim but P...

Supreme Court Allows Homebuyers' Appeal and Waives Time Extension Charges Imposed by Devel...

Supreme Court Dismisses Insurer's and Claimant's Appeals in Motor Accident Death Compensat...

Lost Your Password?