Back
J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
R. Nagaraj (Dead) Through Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
Rajmani – Respondent
JUDGMENT
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras1[Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”] in Second Appeal No.406 of 1998. By the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the second appeal, thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, and remitting the matter to the trial Court for framing additional issues in respect of limitation. The trial Court was further directed to conduct the trial afresh on the aspect of whether the suit was barred by limitation, and to complete it within a period of six months.
3. The genesis of the litigation traces back to a joint Hindu family consisting of Rangappa Gowdar and his sons, Dasappa Gowdar and Samiappan. Originally, the suit bearing O.S.No.851 of 19652[Hereinafter referred to as “the first suit”] had been filed by the wife and daughter of the said Samiappan viz., Sunderammal and Vennila, who are Respondent Nos.6 and 7 herein, seeking maintenance against the said Samiappan and his father Rangappa Gowdar and brother Dasappa Gowdar. The suit came to be decreed on 26.08.1965 and the suit properties w
(1) Second appeal – Section 100 CPC confers jurisdiction on High Court to entertain a second appeal, only when it is satisfied that case involves a substantial question of law.(2) Framing of issue – ....
Point of law: “Conduct of indifference or Acquiescence and held that, it is settled law that an estoppel may arise as against persons who have not willfully made any misrepresentation, and whose cond....
The rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on grounds of limitation requires a full trial when the issue involves mixed questions of law and fact.
The court reaffirmed that a second appeal requires a substantial question of law, and upheld the findings of title and possession based on the evidence presented.
The suit was filed after a delay of 28 years and no genuine cause of action was found from the plaint, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
A previous suit's dismissal for default does not operate as res judicata, nor does it bar a fresh suit in the presence of joint possession.
The appellate court upheld that plaintiffs' title validly established, and amendments to pleadings for possession did not change the suit's nature, ensuring compliance with statutory limitation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
