Madras High Court
Peraviyammal vs Muniyandi on 10 November, 2022
SA(MD)No.696 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.11.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
SA(MD)No.696 of 2022
Peraviyammal : Appellant
Vs.
1.Muniyandi
2.Dhanaraj : Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code to
call for the records relating to the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.44 of
2014, dated 05.02.2015, on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Dindigul,
confirming the judgment and decree passed by the District Munsif Court,
Nilakottai, in O.S.No.186 of 2009, dated 16.04.2014 and set aside the same.
For Appellant : No appearance
*****
JUDGMENT
This second appeal is filed as against the concurrent findings of the Courts
below in O.S.No.186 of 2009, dated 16.04.2014 as well as in A.S.No.44 of 2014,
dated 05.02.2015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD)No.696 of 2022
2.The appeal was filed on 25.04.2016 with a delay of 248 days in
re-presenting the appeal papers and a delay of 355 days in filing the appeal. The
delays were condoned by this Court vide order dated 14.06.2017 and 20.10.2022,
respectively. Thereafter, the appeal was taken up for admission on 03.11.2022. On
that day, there was no representation for the appellant and therefore, the appeal
was directed to be listed on 07.11.2022 in the admission list itself.
3.The appeal is filed with the following substantial questions of law:-
“a) When there is no specific finding or other in earlier
proceedings that the suit property belongs to the respondents herein,
whether the Courts below are correct in dismissing the suit as barred by
respondents judicature without appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence of the plaintiff?
b) When the plaintiff has filed admissible documents to prove her
title and revenue records to prove possession, whether the Courts below
are correct in dismissing the suit stating that the plaintiff has not proved
the title over the property?”
4.On 07.11.2022, this Court, after hearing the appellant's Counsel and on
perusing the records, expressed that this Court is not inclined to entertain the
second appeal. However, the learned Counsel for the appellant sought for a short
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD)No.696 of 2022
accommodation to work out the position of law and to present the case.
Accordingly, at his request, the appeal was adjourned to 09.11.2022, in the
admission list itself.
5.Again, on 09.11.2022, there was no representation for the appellant and
therefore, the matter was directed to be listed today (10.11.2022) under the caption
'for dismissal'. Even today, there is no representation for the appellant.
Hence, this second appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Index : Yes / No 10.11.2022
Internet : Yes
gk
To
1.The Additional Subordinate Judge,
Dindigul.
2.The District Munsif,
Nilakottai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD)No.696 of 2022
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk
SA(MD)No.696 of 2022
10.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
