Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.MURALI SHANKAR
Iruthaiya Thayalan – Appellant
Versus
Society of Arulananthar through its Procurator – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the appeal process. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. legal standard for second appeal jurisdiction. (Para 4 , 5 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. plaintiff's claim vs defendant's defense. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. final dismissal of the second appeal. (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT :
K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.
1. The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.14 of 2020 dated 04.01.2021 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ramanathapuram, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.33 of 2013 dated 28.06.2019 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai.
2. The appellant is the defendant (hereinafter referred as 'defendant'). The respondent / plaintiff (hereinafter referred as 'plaintiff') filed a suit in O.S.No.33 of 2013 for eviction of the defendant and claiming arrears of rent and damages for the use and occupation of the suit property.
3. The defendant filed his written statement and contested the suit. The learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai, after framing necessary issues and after full trial, passed a judgment and decree dated 28.06.2019 dismissing the suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the
The High Court's jurisdiction in second appeals under Section 100 CPC is confined to substantial questions of law; it should not reassess factual findings.
High Courts in second appeals under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code do not review factual findings unless substantial questions of law are presented.
The court affirmed that a lease is terminated by efflux of time and issuance of quit notices, leading to unauthorized possession by the tenant, with no substantial question of law for appeal.
The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of law, not to disturb factual findings by lower courts without valid grounds.
Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are upheld unless proven to be perverse or legally flawed.
A second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code requires the identification of substantial questions of law, which was not demonstrated in this case.
The tenant's eviction was justified based on the landlord's bona fide need under the Jharkhand Building Act, despite tenant's claims of hardship.
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
