Madras High Court Decides Second Appeal in Property Dispute among Legal Heirs under Section 100 CPC. First Appellate Court's Reversal of Trial Court's Decree Questioned on Substantial Questions of Law.

High Court: Madras High Court Bench: Principal
  • 122
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Issue of Consideration

S.A. No.1019 of 2002

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (MAD) (07) 53

S.A. No.1019 of 2002

2026-07-14

R. Sakthivel

2026:MHC:2806

S. Arjun for Kandavadivel Doraisami (Appellant); V. Srimathi (Respondents 1-4,6,8-10); No appearance for Respondent 7

Viswanathan

Sivaji, Manoharan, Markandan, Paramathma, Pitchandi (deceased), Unnamalai, Unnamalai alias Gejjiammal, P. Deepa, Minor Mouneshwaran, Minor Dharshan

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

Remedy Sought

To set aside the Judgment and Decree dated February 28, 2001 in A.S. No.50 of 2000 passed by the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, and restore the Judgment and Decree dated June 30, 2000 in O.S. No.326 of 1996 passed by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Uthangarai.

Filing Reason

Aggrieved by the First Appellate Court's reversal of the Trial Court's decree.

Previous Decisions

Trial Court (O.S. No.326 of 1996) decreed in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. First Appellate Court (A.S. No.50 of 2000) reversed the Trial Court's decree.

Procedural History

Original Suit (O.S. No.326 of 1996) filed before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Uthangarai, and decreed on June 30, 2000. First Appeal (A.S. No.50 of 2000) filed before the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, which reversed the Trial Court's decree on February 28, 2001. Second Appeal (S.A. No.1019 of 2002) preferred before the High Court of Judicature at Madras under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. On March 26, 2026, the Second Appeal was reserved for judgment, and final judgment was delivered on July 14, 2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Incentive Scheme for FCI Loaders but Directs Strict Monitoring to Prevent Abuse of Government Funds. Court finds that while the incentive scheme is legal, its implementation has led to exorbitant earnings and siphoning of fu...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court's Quashing of FIRs in Non-Compoundable Offences Based on Compromise. The Court held that Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to quash serious offences like attempt to murder and robbery merely on compromise, as it affe...