Back
C. KUMARAPPAN
M. Kandasamy (Died) – Appellant
Versus
Arumuga Gounder (Died) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
C. KUMARAPPAN, J.
1. As per the order of My Lord The Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice dated 12.06.2024, this Second Appeal has been listed before this Court.
2. The plaintiffs before the Trial Court are the appellants herein. After the demise of the first appellant, the appellants 3 and 4 were arrayed as the legal representatives of the first appellant. The defendants are arrayed as the respondents 1 and 2. After the demise of the first respondent, his legal heirs were added as the 3rd respondent.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to according to their litigative status before the Trial Court.
4. The brief facts which give rise to the instant Second Appeal is that the plaintiffs purchased the suit property by virtue of a Sale Deed dated 28.03.1990 from one Ganapathi Udayar, Son of Thangamuthu Udayar. Ever since the date of purchase, the plaintiffs have been in actual, physical possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is the submission of the plaintiffs that except on the Northern side, all the three sides of the suit property are bounded by the property belongs to the defendants. Since the plaintiffs' property situates between the defendants' p
The First Appellate Court's compliance with procedural requirements under Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC is essential for ensuring fair adjudication, even if specific points for determination are not framed....
The appellate court must independently assess evidence and provide detailed reasoning in its decision, failing which the judgment is procedural error.
The appellate courts must adhere to procedural mandates, ensuring independent evaluation and reasoned findings, as failure to do so renders judgments unsustainable.
Compliance with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC is mandatory for the appellate court before deciding the appeal on its merits.
First Appellate Court is last Court to decide factual aspects of case – First Appellate Court can reconsider all questions of fact and law dealt by Trial Court.
First appellate courts must thoroughly review evidence and provide reasoned judgments; failure to do so necessitates remanding cases for reevaluation.
A suit for injunction is not maintainable if the plaintiff has knowledge of unclear title issues and the vendors lack the right to convey property.
The First Appellate Court correctly reversed the trial court's decree due to insufficient evidence from the plaintiffs to establish title over the suit property.
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
