N.Haridoss Vs
Case brief
What is this about?
The Court dismissed an application seeking permission to give oral evidence in O.P.No.620 of 2014. The dismissal occurred because the first applicant in the underlying petition had already died. The case was remitted.
What did the court decide?
The application to give oral evidence in O.P.No.620 of 2014 was dismissed due to the death of the first applicant.
What the court decided
/ 1 /
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
A.No.2850 of 2015 IN O.P.No.620 of 2014 IN THE MATTER OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT XXXIX OF 1925 AND IN THE MATTER OF ESTATE OF LATE MR.P.NATHAMUNI NAICKER (DIED) ITESTATE ON 6-8-1997
- N.HARIDOSS
- N.PANCHATCHARAM
- N.EKAMBARAM
- P.ANDALAMMAL
PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 ARE THE SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF LATE P.NATHAMUNI NAICKER AND MRS.VISALAKSHIAMMAL
- S.PERIYANAYKI
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an application allowing oral evidence can be entertained when the primary applicant has died.
Whether pending proceedings should be continued after the death of a key party.
Whether the dispute regarding the estate of the deceased falls under Section 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
N.HARIDOSS
- applicant
N.PANCHATCHARAM
- applicant
N.EKAMBARAM
- applicant
P.ANDALAMMAL
- applicant
S.PERIYANAYKI
- applicant
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court