The court dismissed a regular second appeal as abated, because the learned counsel for the first respondent filed a memo stating the respondent had died and there was no instruction to implead his legal heirs. The matter was finalized in a single paragraph order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/16TH KARTHIKA, 1938
RSA.No. 845 of 2006 (A)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26-11-2005 IN AS 180/2000 of ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM.
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24-09-1999 IN OS 138/1996 of ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTAYAM.
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/4TH DEFENDANT:
---------------------------------
NARAYANAN, S/O. KOCHITTYATHI, HINDU, EZHAVA, AGED 73 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHITHRATHIL, HOUSE, THIRUVANCHOOR, PARAMPUZHA P.O, MANARCADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS 1 TO 3:
1. DAMODHARAN, HINDU, EZHAVA, AGED ABOUT 79, RESIDING CHITHRATHIL HOUSE, THIRUVANCHOOR, MANARCADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.
2. VASU, HINDU, EZHAVA, AGED ABOUT 59, RESIDING AT CHITHRATHIL HOUSE, THIRUVANCHOOR, MANARCADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.
3. LAKSHMI, W/O.VASU, HINDU, EZHAVA, AGED ABOUT 54, RESIDING AT CHITHRATHIL HOUSE, THIRUVANCHOOR, MANARCADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.
4. SURENDRAN, S/O.VASU, HINDU, EZHAVA, AGED ABOUT 32, RESIDING AT CHITHRATHIL HOUSE,
THIRUVANCHOOR, MANARCADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K. HARILAL, J.
-----------------------------------------------------R.S.A. No.845 of 2006-A
-----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 7th day of November, 2016
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned counsel for the 1st respondent filed a memo stating that the 1st respondent in this case died on 19/09/2010 and he has no instruction from the appellant to take steps to implead the legal heirs of the deceased 1st respondent. It is reasonably presumed that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting this matter, after the death of the 1st respondent.
Hence this Regular Second Appeal will stand dismissed as abated.
Sd/-
(K. HARILAL, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge
NARAYANAN
DAMODHARAN
K. HARILAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
