Partly allowed

Sivakumar, v. Mrs.Kamalammal(Since Deceased)

Madras HC14 Nov 2014CMP/1949/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed petitions to declare petitioners as major and discharge mother from guardianship. Dismissed petitions condoning delay for second appeal and setting aside abatement of suit.

What did the court decide?

Petitions 49 & 52 for condonation of delay dismissed; Petitions 50-54 for setting aside abatement dismissed; Petitions 55 & 56 for declaring major and discharging guardianship allowed.

Sivakumar, Vs Mrs.Kamalammal(Since Deceased) — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

CMP No.1949 of 2010

¶2

CMP No.1950 of 2010, CMP No.1951 of 2010, CMP No.1953 of 2010, CMP No.1952 of 2010, CMP No.1954 of 2010, CMP No.1955 of 2010, CMP No.1956 of 2010

¶3

The Hon`ble Mr Justice M. SATHYANARAYANAN

¶4

SIVAKUMAR, NO.90, NORTH STREET, MUSARAVAKKAM VILLAGE & POST, KANCHEEPURAM TK & DT. and 2 others. Vs MRS.KAMALAMMAL(SINCE DECEASED) . and 16 others.

¶5

The petitioners / appellants, in the affidavits filed in support of the petitions in C.M.P.Nos.1949 and 1952 of 2010, seeking to condone the delay of 7293 days and 1614 days in filing the petitions to set aside the abatement caused due to the demise of respondents 1 and 2 respectively, averred among other things that after the disposal of the appeal suits in A.S.No.85 of 1983 on 26.02.1986, the first respondent, namely, Tmt.Kamalammal, died on 04.12.1989, leaving behind her husband, sons and daughters and the said fact was not known to them, though they were the relatives of the respondents.

¶6

2.The petitioners were the minor plaintiffs in O.S.No.187 of 1981 on the file of Court of District Munsif at Kancheepuram, which was filed for the relief of partition and separate possession and for other consequential benefits. The suit, after contest, was decreed and a preliminary decree was granted vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.1983 and challenging the said decree, the first defendant, namely, Kamalammal, had filed the above said appeal and vide judgment and decree dated 26.02.1986, the appeal came to be allowed in her favour and consequently, the suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed. Challenging the same, the present second appeal is filed.

¶7

3.A perusal of the affidavits filed in support of the petitions are bereft of any material. The delay is very much on the higher side. Though it is admitted in the affidavits filed in support of these petitions that the deceased first respondent, namely, Kamalammal, was related to the petitioners / appellants and in view of the pendency of litigation, they have no connection whatsoever with her, the fact remains that the delay is very much on the higher side and therefore, the petitioners are bound to explain the reasons for such a huge delay. However, no tenable or acceptable reasons have been adduced in the affidavits filed in support of these petitions.

¶8

4.Therefore, C.M.P.Nos.1949 and 1952 of 2010 seeking to condone the delay are dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.1950, 1951, 1953 and 1954 of 2010, seeking to set aside the abatement caused due to the demise of respondents 1 and 2 and to bring their legal representatives on record, are also dismissed.

¶9

5.C.M.P.Nos.1955 and 1956 of 2010 seeking to declare the second and third petitioners as majors and to discharge the mother from the guardianship are allowed.

¶10

[M S N J]

¶11

SRA

Sivakumar, v. Mrs.Kamalammal(Since Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivakumar, v. Mrs.Kamalammal(Since Deceased)

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

Smt. Subbulakshmi, Vs the District Collector /

Ramasamy Gounder Vs K.S.Palanisamy(Deceased)

S.v.Matha Prasad Vs Renuka Devi

S.P.N.Krishnamurthy, Vs The Senior Regional Manager

V. Amavasai Vs the State of Tamilnadu

R.Ammasi Vs the Managing Director