The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissed the Second Appeal as abated because the sole respondent, Arunachala Nadar, had died and no legal representatives were brought on record.
The Second Appeal is dismissed as abated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 14.02.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
S.A.(MD)No.210 of 2013
1.Ramola Selva Radhika
2.Jothi .. Appellants/Appellants/Defendants
Vs.
Arunachala Nadar .. Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.159 of 2006, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tuticorin dated 29.01.2009, confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.93 of 2003, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tuticorin, dated 23.09.2005.
For Appellants : Mr.M.Siddharthan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Kadarkarai
JUDGMENT
The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the sole respondent Arunachala Nadar had died long back and that no steps have been taken so far to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased sole respondent.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(Writs)
/True copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
2
To
Copy To: The Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Ssl
CSL/SV-MMS/24.02.2017 : 2P/4C
S.A.(MD)No.210 of 2013 14.02.2017
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Second Appeal stands dismissed due to the death of the respondent and failure to bring legal representatives on record.
Ramola Selva Radhika
Jothi
Arunachala Nadar
M.Duraismusamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
