Dismissed

Govindarajan Pillai v. Harikrishnan

Madras HC30 Jan 2017SA/1344/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal regarding a dismissed property suit, the court held that the appeal abated because one appellant died and his legal representatives were not brought on record. The appeal is dismissed and costs left to subordinate courts.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed for abatement as the legal representative of the deceased second appellant was not brought on record.

Govindarajan Pillai Vs Harikrishnan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 30.01.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

S.A.No. 1344 of 1997

¶6

Govindarajan Pillai 2. Rathinam Pillai ...Appellants/Respondents/ Palintiff

¶7

Vs. Harikrishnan ...Respondent/Appellant/ Dependent

¶8

Prayer:- This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 26.04.1996 made in A.S.No.121 of 1994 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai reversing the well considered judgment and decree dated 31.10.1994 made in O.S.No.338 of 1987 on the file of District Munsif Court, Sirkali.

¶9

For Appellants : Mr.A.Muthukumar

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.G.Harikrishna

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the second appellant died pending appeal about three years ago and he is not in a position to find out the legal representatives of the deceased second appellant and brought them on record. Since the decree is indivisible decree, due death of one appellant the appeal got abated.

¶13

He has also requested this Court to record the same and pass orders.

¶14

The facts of the case reveals that the suit has been dismissed by the first appellate Court against the appellants herein on the ground the defendant has perfected title by adverse possession. Though the second appeal has been preferred against the dismissal of the suit, the party interested viz., the first appellant has not furnished the information about the legal representatives of the deceased second appellant.

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

Hence the appeal is dismissed as abated. No order as
to costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rts
To
1. The Subordinate Judge,
Mayiladuthurai
2. The District Munsif Court, Sirkali.
Copy to
Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras-104.
EV(CO)
RS(14/02/2017)
S.A.No. 1344 of 1997

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Govindarajan Pillai v. Harikrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govindarajan Pillai v. Harikrishnan

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

Padmavathi Ammal Vs Radhakrishnan

Vs

Veeramuthu Naicker Vs Rangaraju Naidu(Decsd.,)

Neelavathi, Rep.by Her Power Vs Manga Thai

Dhanalakshmi Ammal (Deceased Vs Varadarajan

Pappu Vs Sakkarachettiar (Vao)