Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Mayan vs Gnanasamy Died 1. Sekar on 2 April, 2026

                                                                            SA(MD). No.219 of 2022


                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                Dated : 02/04/2026

                                                     CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

                                             SA(MD). No.219 of 2022

                     Mayan                                                 ... Appellant

                                                    Vs
                     1. Gnanasamy Died
                     1. Sekar,
                     2. Pappu,
                     3. Arul Xavier,
                     4. Mary,
                     5. Savariammal,
                     6. Stephen                                        ... Respondents

                     PRAYER :- Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedue
                     Code, To set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 13.10.2020 passed in
                     A.S. No. 65 of 2017 on the file of Learned Subordinate Judge,
                     Sivagangai, confirming Judgment and decree dated 08.03.2017 in O.S.
                     No. 49 of 2012 on the file of the Learned District Munsif, Sivagangai and
                     thus allow the appeal with costs and thus render justice.

                       For appellants   : M/s.A. Mohan,
                       For Respondents 2 to 5 : Mr. R. Balakrishnan

                                                     ORDER

This Second Appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

1) Whether both the courts below correct in not 1/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA(MD). No.219 of 2022 decreeing to the extent of share of Sangarayee upon considering the unambiguous admission of D2 in his written statement stated that suit schedule property is ancestral property of both Irulayee and Sangaraye?
2). Whether both the courts below correct in not disbelieving the execution of the power deed in favour of the 2nd defendant by the Irulayee by taking adverse inference against the 2nd defendant under 114 of the Evidence Act for his non- appearance in the witnesses box to depose the execution of the power of attorney which is the base for the execution of the sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant
3). Whether both the courts below correct in holding that sale deed executed by the Irulayee in favour of the defendant is not required to prove in terms of the Section 68 of the Evidence Act when the Irulayee and her Power of Attorney specifically denied the validity of the document.

2. Despite attempts to serve the 6th respondent, service remains incomplete. The learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to effect service by way of publication in one issue of any Tamil daily newspaper having wide circulation in Sivagangai District for the hearing on 28.04.2026.

3. The paper publication shall be affected on or before 24.04.2026. Post on 28.04.2026. In the meantime, Registry is directed to call for records from the Court concerned.

02.04.2026 TRP 2/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis