Dismissed

Padmanabhan Bhargavan (Died ,Lrs Impleaded) v. Krishnan Surendran

Kerala HC24 Jul 2019RSA/241/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Second Appellate Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable because the second respondent, who was recorded as dead by the first appellate court, was in fact alive and not joined as a party to the appeal. The court allowed appellants to file a fresh appeal after rectifying the defect.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable due to the defect of non-joining of the second respondent.

Padmanabhan Bhargavan (Died ,Lrs Impleaded) Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 2ND SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

RSA.No.241 of 2004 (D)

¶6

AGAINST THE DECREE & JUDGMENT DATED 27-08-2003 IN AS No.69/1996 of SUB COURT, ATTINGAL

¶7

AGAINST THE DECREE & JUDGMENT DATED 15.12.1995 IN OS No.64/1991 of MUNSIFF COURT, VARKALA

¶8

APPELLANT/5th RESPONDENT/5 th DEFENDANT:

¶9

1 PADMANABHAN BHARGAVAN, AGED 62, (DIED, LRS IMPLEADED) PUTHUVALVILA VEEDU, VAKKOM DESOM, NILAKKAMMUKKU.

¶10

A2 SATHEEDEVI K., B.S. BHAVAN, NILAKKAMUKKU, KADAKKAVOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695306

¶11

A3 SINDHU B.S., B.S. BHAVAN, NILAKKAMUKKU, KADAKKAVOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695306

¶12

A4 SANTHOSH B.S., B.S. BHAVAN, NILAKKAMUKKU, KADAKKAVOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695306

¶13

A5 B.SURENDRANATH, B.S. BHAVAN, NILAKKAMUKKU, KADAKKAVOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695306

¶14

THE LRS OF DECEASED SOLE APPELLANT ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 2 TO 5 AS PER ORDER DATED 18.01.2013 IN IA 120/2013.

¶15

BY ADVS.SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN SMT.RAGAM.K.P. SMT.REEJA HARI SMT.VINITHA PRASANNAN SRI.P.ANIYAN SRI.R.SURESH

¶16

RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS & RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS:

¶17

1 KRISHNAN SURENDRAN, AGED 70, VATTAVILA VEEDU, POOVANPARA, MELATTINGAL DESOM, ALAMCODE VILLAGE.

¶18

R.S.A.No.241 of 2004

¶19

¶20

2 VISALAKSHI LALITHA, AGED 52 OF -DO- -DO-

¶21

3 VISALAKSHI PRABHAVATHI, AGED 45 OF -DO- -DO-

¶22

4 NARAYANAN VISWANATHAN, AGED 42 OF -DO- -DO5 P.SANTHA, W/o SURENDRAN, AGED 51, VATTAVILA VEEDU, POOVANPARA, MELATTIINGAL DESOM, ALAMCODE VILLAGE.

¶23

6 S.ANIL, AGED 30 OF -DO- -DO7 S.SHYLA, AGED 28 OF -DO- -DO8 S.SHIBU, AGED 26 OF -DO- -DO9 S.SHEEBA, AGED 24 OF -DO- -DO10 RAMAKRISHNAN SOBHANA, AGED 35, PUTHUVALVILA VEEDU, VAKKOM DESOM AND VILLAGE.

¶24

11 RAMAKRISHNAN SULEKHA, AGED 32 DO- -DO12 PADMANABHAN VANAJAKSHI, KUNNUVILA VEEDU, VAKKOM DESOM.

¶25

13 PADMANABHAN RAJAMMA, AGED 49, KANAVILA VEEDU, VAKKOM DESOM.

¶26

14 PADMANABHAN NALINI, AGED 46, KUNNUVILA VEEDU, VAKKOM DESOM.

¶27

15 SAVITHRI, W/o VASUDEVAN VASAVAN, AGED 58, ALUVILAKATHU VEEDU, VAKKOM DESOM AND VILLAGE.

¶28

16 MANOHARAN, S/o VASUDEVAN VASAVAN, AGED 39, B.S.VIHAR, KADAKKAVOOR.

¶29

17 KABOOR DAS, S/o VASUDEVAN VASAVAN, ALUVILAKATHU VEEDU, VAKKOM VILLAGE AND DESOM.

¶30

18 VINOD, S/o VASUDEVAN VASAVAN, AGED 34 YEARS OF -DO- -DO-

¶31

19 S.RENUKA DEVI, AGED 52, SWAPNA, VAKKOM VILLAGE AND DESOM.

¶32

R.S.A.No.241 of 2004

¶33

¶34

20 G.SMITHA, AGED 28 OF -DO- -DO-

¶35

21 G.SANDHYA, AGED 24 OF -DO- -DO-

¶36

22 G. SENTRO, AGED 20 YEARS, OF DO. DO. DO R2 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA

¶37

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.07.2019. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

R.S.A.No.241 of 2004

JUDGMENT

The third appellant passed away during the pendency of

¶42

first appeal. It was noted as the death of second respondent by the First Appellate Court. The appeal was filed only against the LRs of third respondent and other respondents wherein the second respondent not made as a party, as his status was recorded as 'dead' by the First Appellate Court. In fact, he was alive. So the appeal preferred without the junction of second respondent will not stand. On an earlier occasion this Court has returned the decree for curing the aforesaid defect and it is pending before the First Appellate Court. In any view of

¶43

the matter this appeal will not stand since the second respondent is not in the party array. It is made clear that the appellants will be at liberty to file a fresh appeal, if it is permissible, on getting the decree rectified. Without prejudice to the said right of appellants, if any, this appeal is dismissed as not maintainable due to the abovesaid defect.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

DMR/-

Padmanabhan Bhargavan (Died ,Lrs Impleaded) v. Krishnan Surendran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padmanabhan Bhargavan (Died ,Lrs Impleaded) v. Krishnan Surendran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajamma Vs Sivasankaran

Balakrishnan Vs K.K.Sivasankaran

Sreekrishnan Vs Chamy

Ramachandran Nair Vs Raghavan Nair

Mariam, Vs Kurian Mathew (Died)

ADDL.A4.JOSEPH Mathew, Vs Mariam