Kaliappan v. Karuppayammal
Case brief
What is this about?
The court dismissed the second appeal as abated because the sole respondent, Karuppayammal, died and no legal representative could be brought on record. The connected CMP is also closed.
What did the court decide?
The second appeal and the connected CMP are disposed of as abated; no costs.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.02.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI S.A.No.1596 of 2000 and C.M.P.No.14983 of 2000
Kaliappan
...Appellant/Defendant Vs.
Karuppayammal
...Respondent/Plaintiff
PRAYER: The Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.07.2000 in A.S.No.67 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam, preferred against the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.63 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Gobichettipalayam and dated 10.09.1999.
For Respondent :Mr.V.Nicholas
When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant filed a memo dated 26.02.2018 stating that the sole respondent i.e. Karuppayammal has died and he has served the learned counsel appearing for the deceased respondent, a letter dated 12.02.2018, requesting the particulars of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent has informed that the letter sent by him to the sole respondent has returned with an endorsement addressee deceased and he was not able to get any information or particulars about the legal representatives of the deceased sole respondent. The appellant had also attempted to get the details of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent but could not get the details.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Kaliappan
- respondent
Karuppayammal
Coram
M. Dhandapani
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court