want a copy of appeal cases
Guest
(Querist) 21 February 2011
This query is : Resolved
hi experts,
a warm good morning to all of you,
i want a favour from you.hope you ll help me.actually i want a copy of appeal case which shall be lie in the court of high court...
thanks and regards,
have a beautiful day!
MAMTA
(Expert) 21 February 2011
please be specific there are numbers of appeal file in high court
Guest
(Querist) 21 February 2011
thanx for your reply mamta ji ...and yeah, i dont want any specific appeal case but you can provide me any appeal case of high court...thanx once again
G. ARAVINTHAN
(Expert) 27 February 2011
can download from our share files section
M/s. Y-not legal services
(Expert) 30 April 2011
MEMORANDUM OF GROUNDS OF SECOND APPEAL
( Under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code)
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPLE MUNSIF, SIVAGANGAI
O.S.NO. 56 OF 2007
IN THE COURT OF SUB-ORDINATE JUDGE,
SIVAGANGAI
A.S.NO.156/2010
BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE AT MADRAS
MADURAI BENCH
S.A. NO. /2011
Krishnan,
S/o. Thangadurai,
through his power agent Thangadurai, S/o. Karuppiah
Marathur Village,
Marathud Post,
Sivagangai Taluk,
Sivagangai District. ….Plaintiff/1st Respondent/Appellant
/Vs/
1. Balu,
S/o. Vellaisamy Thevar,
Neduvandhavu Village,
Marathur Post,
Sivagangai Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
2. Rajangam,
S/o.Chinnathambi,
Neduvandhavu Village,
Marathur Post,
Sivagangai Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
3. Leelavathi,
W/o. Anguchamy,
Marathur Village,
Marathur Post,
Sivagangai Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
4. Peri. Krishnan,
S/o. Periyaudaichi,
Marathur Village,
Marathur Post,
Sivagangai Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
-2-
5. Aru. Krishnamoorthi,
S/o. Arumugathevar,
Marathur Village,
Marathur Post,
Sivagangai Taluk,
Sivagangai District. …..Defendant 1 to 4/ Respondent 2 to 5/Respondents
The address for service of summon, notice and Processes on the appellants one that of its counsels L.Madhusudhanan and M.Thangapandian, Chamber No.15, High Court Buildings, Madurai.
The appellant begs to prefer this appeal against Judgment and Decree dated 12.1.2011 made in A.S. No. 56/2010 on the file of the Sub – Ordinate Judge reversing the Judgement and decree dated 5.9.2010 made in O.S. No. 56/2007 on the file of District Munsif Court, Sivagangai for the following among other;
GROUNDS
1. The Judgment and Decree of the lower appellate court is contrary to law and weigh of evidence and probabilities of the case.
2. The Lower Appellate court ought not to have reverse the decree of injunction when admittedly plaintiff is in possession of the suit property.
3. The lower appellate court ought to have seen that the plaintiff’s vendor Balu son of Vallaichamy at Maradhur Village, but Balu son of Vellaichamy at Mudikarai no way connected with the suit property. The said Balu at Mudikarai has calculated to naturally Balu at Maradhur only with the intention to grab the suit property. Actually his name is Baluchamy.
-3-
4. The lower appellate court failed to note that appellant’s vendor had been granted with UDR Patta in the year 1985 itself. There after he has been continuously remitting the kist. In the year 2006 he sold out the suit property to the appellant through a registered sale deed Ex.A3 i.e., Registered document. There after appellant got transfer of Patta in his name i.e., marked as Ex.A4.
5. The lower appellate court ought not to have reverse the judgment by taking into accounts of oral evidence contrary to the documentary evidence.
6. The lower appellate court ought not to have given much weight to the oral evidence of PW.2 which is against the revenue records. It is relevant to see that his deposition is subsequent to sale of this said property after receiving consideration. Moreover at the time he could not in proper fit of physical condition. Since he is having no regard in the result of the suit, his evidence ought not to be given much important.
7. The lower appellate court ought to have seen that the suit has been file against the 2 to 5 respondents herein alone. At the instants of the 4th Respondent herein, the appellant was constrained to file an implead Petition for impleading the 1st Respondent herein. The only object of impleadment was to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and binding value of decree against the 3rd party. The suit is one for bare injunction that to filed against the 2 to 5th respondent herein inspite of their intervention in the enjoyment of this said property. Hence, the said contesting respondent in the injunction suit, a played clever act of tag the present 1st respondent herein and raised the title dispute.
-4-
8. The prime question involved as per the courts below is who is the predecessor in title of the subject suit property i.e., Balu S/o. Vellaichamy, at Maradhur or Balu S/o. Vellaichamy, at Mudikarai. The veing the probabilities in the said aspect on the basis of assignment in the year 1971. The age is crucial factor. Since at the time of deposition of D.W5 i.e., 1st Respondent herein aged about 50 i.e., 2010. Hence, he could have been 10 years old at the time of assignment. But to the contra the appellant vendor was 30 years old. Secondly some of the records received by the alleged Mudikarai Balu by signing his signature but Balu at Maradhur only affix thumb impression. Lastly his name his not Balu but Baluchamy as per his records.
9. The any other reasons assigned by the lower appellate court is contrary to the actual fact and wrong presumption and liable to be interfered with.
Substantial question of law
1. Whether the lower appellate court right in law in reverses in the decree of bare injunction granted by the trial court. When possession of the suit property admittedly with the appellant?
2. Whether the oral evidence supersedes the documentary evidence?
3. Whether the lower appellate court rightly applied the principle of title follows possession?
4. Whether the lower appellate court right in law in going into the question of title when the suit is one for bare injunction?
5. Whether the lower appellate court has applied the basic principle of probabilities?
-5-
6. Whether the power of attorney holder can speak for principle when admittedly he has been all along involved in the entire events?
It is therefore humble prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 12.1.2011 made in A.S. No. 56/2010 on the file of the Sub – Ordinate Judge reversing the Judgement and decree dated 5.9.2010 made in O.S. No. 56/2007 on the file of District Munsif Court, Sivagangai and allow the above 2nd Appeal and thus render justice.
MEMO OF VALUATION:
Value of the suit Rs. 9,000/-
Court Fee paid Rs. 675.50/-
Value of A.S. Rs. 9,000/-
Court Fee paid Rs. 675.50/-
Value of Second Appeal Rs. 9,000/-
Court Fee paid Rs. 675.50/-
Dated at Madurai on this the 9th day of March 2011.
Counsel for the Appellants
BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE AT MADRAS
MADURAI BENCH
S.A. NO. /2011
Krishnan,
S/o. Thangadurai,
Through his power agent Thangadurai, S/o. Karuppiah …. Appellant
/Vs/
Balu,
S/o. Vellaisamy Thevar,
Neduvandhavu Village,
Marathur Post,
Sivagangai Taluk,
Sivagangai District. And 4 others ….. Respondents
TYPED SET OF PAPERS
S.No. Date Particular of Documents Remarks
1. Copy of the Plaint in O.S. No. 56/2007 on the file of the District Munsif, Sivagangai.
2. Copy of the written statements in O.S. No. 56/2007 on the file of the District Munsif, Sivagangai.
3. 5.9.2010 Judgment in O.S. No. 56/2007 on the file of the District Munsif, Sivagangai.
4. 5.9.2010 Decree in O.S. No. 56/2007 on the file of the District Munsif, Sivagangai.
5. 12.1.2011 Judgment in A.S. No.56/2010 on the file of the Sub – ordinate Court, Sivagangai.
6. 12.1.2011 Decree in A.S. No.56/2010 on the file of the Sub – ordinate Court, Sivagangai.
Dated at Madurai this the 9th day of March 2011.
Counsel for the Appellant
M/s. Y-not legal services
(Expert) 30 April 2011
file formates not supporting here madam.. just adjust. its for just formate only..
Guest
(Querist) 01 May 2011
thanx a lot mr tom for your this favour. I'm highly obliged for this. Once again thanx a lot sir...
