Monday, 04, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Balamurugan vs Visalatchi @ Viji
2021 Latest Caselaw 3892 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 3892 Mad
Judgement Date : 16 February, 2021

Madras High Court
Balamurugan vs Visalatchi @ Viji on 16 February, 2021
                                                                          S.A. No.709 of 2017, dt.16.02.2021


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED : 16.02.2021

                                                           CORAM

                           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

                                               Second Appeal No.709 of 2017

                     Balamurugan
                     Rep. By his General Power Agent,
                     M.Ganapathi                                               ... Appellant

                                                           Versus

                     Visalatchi @ Viji                                        ... Respondent

                              The Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure
                     Code, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 08.06.2016 passed in
                     A.S.No.2 of 2014, by the Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur, confirming
                     the Judgment and Decree, dated 25.01.2012 passed in O.S.No.34 of 2011
                     by the Subordinate Judge, Mannargudi.

                                           For Appellant    : Ms.M.Meenatchi
                                           For Respondent : Mr.S.Arivazhagan

                                                       JUDGMENT

The second appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment and

Decree dated 08.06.2016 passed in A.S.No.2 of 2014, by the Principal

District Judge, Thiruvarur, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated

25.01.2012 passed in O.S.No.34 of 2011 by the Subordinate Judge,

Mannargudi.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

S.A. No.709 of 2017, dt.16.02.2021

2.Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned

counsel appearing for the Respondent and perused the materials available

on record.

2.The learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that there

were two suits filed before the Court below viz., O.S.No.34 of 2011 and

O.S.No.35 of 2011 and both the suits were dismissed. Against the order of

dismissal dated 08.06.2016 in O.S.No.35 of 2011 in A.S.No.15 of 2012.

As against the dismissal of A.S. No. 15 of 2012, Second Appeal No. 771 of

2017 was filed before this Court and the same was also dismissed by this

Court on 07.12.2017.

3.This Second Appeal in S.A.No.709 of 2017 was also filed before

this Court by the appellant challenging the order of dismissal dated

08.06.2016 passed in O.S.No.34 of 2011 confirmed in A.S.No.2 of 2014.

Therefore, the learned counsel stated that the appellant filed two appeals by

challenging the concurrent Judgment passed in two suits.

4.Further, he submitted that the Second appeal in S.A.No.771 of

2017 was dismissed on the ground that the Power Agent alone was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

S.A. No.709 of 2017, dt.16.02.2021

examined and the Owner of the property was not examined. Therefore, both

the Courts below have concurrently dismissed the suits on the above said

ground. Based on the concurrent findings, this Court dismissed the appeal

in S.A.No.771 of 2017 and the present Second Appeal is also covered by

the Judgments of this Court. Hence, it is liable to be dismissed.

5.In both the Second Appeal, the purchaser is the same and the

vendors are husband and wife. In the present appeal, upon perusing the

judgment in both the suits, it is seen that the Courts below dismissed the

suit, on the ground that Power Agent alone was examined and the Owner of

the property was not examined. Since this Court has taken a similar view

and confirmed the order of dismissal of the suit in S.A.No.771 of 2017 on

the same reasons that the Power Agent only had examined and the Original

Owner was not examined this Court cannot take a contra view in this

appeal. Further, this Court has already taken a such view and dismissed the

Second Appeal No.771 of 2017 by assigning the same finding. Therefore, I

do not find any merits in the present Second Appeal, hence, it deserves for

dismissal.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

S.A. No.709 of 2017, dt.16.02.2021

6.Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed by confirming the

Judgment and Decree dated 08.06.2016 passed in A.S.No.2 of 2014, by the

Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur, confirming the Judgment and Decree,

dated 25.01.2012 passed in O.S.No.34 of 2011 by the Subordinate Judge,

Mannargudi. No costs.



                                                                                             16.02.2021
                     Index    : Yes/No
                     Internet : Yes/No
                     Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order

                     klt

                     To

1. The Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur,

2. The Subordinate Judge, Mannargudi.

3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

S.A. No.709 of 2017, dt.16.02.2021

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J.,

klt

S.A.No.709 of 2017

16.02.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter