Dismissed

Kamalasanan v. K.Saraswathy

Kerala HC21 Mar 2019RSA/905/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court held that the second appeal stood abated due to the death of the sole appellant and the first respondent. The court rejected attempts to implead legal heirs via defective applications filed by a deceased person and dismissed the appeal accordingly while preserving rights to challenge abatement later.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as abated due to the death of the sole appellant and the first respondent.

Kamalasanan Vs K.Saraswathy — 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

THURSDAY ,THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

RSA.No. 905 of 2005 (G)

¶6

AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED 4/6/2005 IN AS 97/2000 of III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED 26/9/1998 IN OS 745/1996 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶8

APPELLANT/APPELLANT/1ST DEFENDANT:

¶9

KAMALASANAN, KALIMADATHIL VEEDU PRASANTH NAGAR, THIRUVICKAL, CHERUVAKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.P.A.AHAMMED SRI.A.AHZAR SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN SRI.M.SREEKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS:RESPONDENTS:PLAINTIFFS & DEFENDANTS 2 TO 4:

¶12

1 K.SARASWATHY, T.C.NO.10/1337, BIJU VIHAR, MELATHUMELE, VATTIYOORKAVU FROM POOLALEKOTTU VEEDU, PATHIRIKARI MURI, VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

2 SUJATHA, KALIMADATHIL VEEDU PRASANTH NAGAR, THIRUVICKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

3 RAGHU, KALIMADATHIL VEEDU PRASANTH NAGAR, THIRUVICKAL, CHERUVAKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

4 REMADEVI, LEKSHMI BHAVAN, T.C.NO.13/1031, THERUVIL PUTHEN VEEDU, CHERUVAKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI FOR R1 SRI.P.M.JOSEPH FOR R1

¶17

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

RSA No.905/2005, I.A.Nos.1/2019, 2/2019 & C.M.Appln.3/2019

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The sole appellant passed away. The first

¶22

respondent also passed away. Three applications as I.A.Nos.1/2019, 2/2019 and C.M.Appln.No.3/2019 were filed for impleading the legal heirs of deceased appellant. But the application is found to be defective as it was filed by a dead person as the first petitioner along with the legal heirs. The first respondent in the said applications is the first respondent in the appeal, who is also not alive at the time when the applications were filed. In fact these

¶23

three applications will not stand in the eye of law.

¶24

The learned counsel for the appellant fairly

¶25

submitted that he is intending to file fresh

¶26

applications for impleading the legal heirs of deceased first respondent and also impleading the legal heirs of the appellant. It is a matter of the year 2005. Now the appeal stood as abated by the death of the sole appellant and the first respondent.

¶27

Hence the appeal is dismissed as abated, without

¶28

RSA No.905/2005, I.A.Nos.1/2019, 2/2019 & C.M.Appln.3/2019

¶29

¶30

prejudice to the right of any of the legal heirs to set

¶31

aside abatement on any sufficient grounds.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

Kamalasanan v. K.Saraswathy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamalasanan v. K.Saraswathy

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

C.Madhava Vs Balakrishnan

Chandran Raghavan Vs Babykutty

Chandran Ramachandran Vs Chandran Raghavan

Gopinathan Vs Balan @ Ayyappan

Radhamani and Others Vs Mrinalini & Others

V.K.Rajan Vs Krishna Parameswar