Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 12815 Mad
Judgement Date : 20 September, 2023
S.A.No.770 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
A.S.No.770 of 2018
---
Loganathan ... Appellant
Versus
1.Gangabai
Renganayaki (deceased)
2.Rangabai
Kuppusamy (deceased)
3.P.K.Ravi
4.P.Bharathi ...
Respondents
Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code,
praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 06.02.2017 made in
A.S.No.6 of 2014 on the file of the Sub-Court, Arakonam, confirming the
judgment and decree dated 20.12.2006 made in O.S.No.482 of 1996 on the
file of the District Munsif Court, Arakonam.
For Appellant : No appearance
For R1 : Mr.N.Manoharan
For R2 : Batta Due
For R3 & R4 : Mr.P.Krishnan
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.770 of 2018
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the appellant to set aside the judgment
and decree dated 06.02.2017 made in A.S.No.6 of 2014 on the file of the
Sub-Court, Arakonam, confirming the judgment and decree dated
20.12.2006 made in O.S.No.482 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif
Court, Arakonam.
2. Heard, Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the first
respondent, Mr.P.Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3
and 4. The name of the appellant also printed in the cause list but there is no
representation on the side of the appellant.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 submitted that in
the above S.A.No.770 of 2018 filed by the 3rd defendant in suit against the
judgment and decree dated 06.02.2017 in A.S.No.6 of 2014 and the decree
dated 20.12.1996 passed in O.S.No.482 of 1996. The plaintiff filed final
decree application in I.A.No.209 of 2007 in O.S.No.482 of 1996 on the file
of the District Munsif Court, Arakkonam and the same was allowed on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.770 of 2018
04.01.2011. Similarly, the defendants 2 & 4 to 6 filed E.P.Nos.8/2015 & 10
/2015 respectively to deliver the possession. Accordingly, Executing Court
handed over the possession to them on 12.01.2016 and the same was
recorded. Based on the final decree these defendants took possession of the
property through Executing Court, a memo has been filed to that effect
wants to record the same.
4. The memo filed by them is recorded. Similarly the plaintiff also
took possession of the property based on the final decree proceedings,
through Court below on 04.01.2011. The submissions made by the learned
counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 is also noted by this Court.
5. Accordingly, the Second appeal is dismissed. The memo filed by
the respondents 3 and 4 shall form part of the decree. No costs.
20.09.2023 rri
Index : Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.770 of 2018
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rri
To
1. The Sub-Court, Arakonam.
2. The District Munsif Court, Arakonam.
3. The Section Officer, VR-Section, High Court of Madras.
S.A.No.770 of 2018
20.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!