Dismissed

Amirtham v. Mulaviammal

Madras HC7 Apr 2017SA/205/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court treated the second appeal as dismissed on the principal ground that the first and second appellants had died without their legal representatives being brought on record, thereby abating the proceedings against them. The appeal against the third appellant was listed for further hearing. No other substantive disposal was pronounced in this order.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed as abated against the first and second appellants as their heirs could not be brought on record.

Amirtham Vs Mulaviammal — Madras HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 07.04.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

S.A.No.205 of 2011

¶6

Amirtham
2. Ponnammal
3. Perambayi .. Appellants
Vs.
1. Mulaviammal
2. Jayalakshmi
3. Rajeswari
4. Manju
5. Thilakavathi
6. Arumugam
7. Samundi
8. Perama Mooppar
9. Kannan
10. Rajendran, S/o Pachaimuthu

¶7

Rajendran, S/o Munusamy

¶8

(Notice to respondents 6 to 8, 10 and 11 may be dispensed with, as respondents 6 to 8 and 10 were deleted by appellate Court and 11th respondent remained ex-parte)

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2009 in A.S.No.38 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Court, Villupuram, against the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2007 in O.S.No.46 of 2004 on the file of the Sub-Court, Kallakurichi.

¶11

For appellant : Mr.J.Antony Jesus For respondent : Mr.S.Sounthar for RR-1 to 4

¶12

No appearance for RR-5 and 9

¶13

RR-6 to 8 and 10 - notice

¶14

dispensed with

¶15

R-11 ex-parte before Court below

¶16

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

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellants by filing Memo, dated 10.11.2016 that the first and second appellants are no more and that he has been taking steps to bring their legal representatives on record, but unable to contact the legal heirs and hence, he prayed that the Court may pass appropriate orders taking note of the above circumstances. As no legal heirs with respect to the deceased appellants 1 and 2 contacted the learned counsel for the appellants, they could not be brought on record. Therefore, the Second Appeal is dismissed as abated as against the appellants 1 and 2. No costs.

¶19

List the Second Appeal in the usual course for hearing,
as far as the third appellant is concerned.
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CSVII)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
cs
Copy to
1. The District Judge, Villupuram.
2. The Sub-Judge, Kallakurichi.
3. The Record Keeper, V.R. Section,
High Court, Madras.
S.A.No.205 of 2011
ppa(co)
aa24/04/2017

¶20

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

Amirtham v. Mulaviammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amirtham v. Mulaviammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Land Acquisition Officer Vs Kanniyammal

Peryasamy Vs Sreerangayee

Marimuthu Vs R. Rathinasabapathy

Ramasamy Boyan Vs Sarasu

Amudha D/O. Lakshmanan Vs the Joiont Director

Perumal, Vs Renganathan (Died)