Dismissed

Neelambal v. Kattupalayam Sri Mariamman

Madras HC2 Jan 2020SA/1198/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed multiple second appeals and cross objection petitions as abated. The court held that since the sole appellants died and their legal heirs took no steps to proceed, the appeals could not continue. Similarly, cross objections were dismissed due to lack of steps to bring the deceased respondent's legal heirs on record.

What did the court decide?

Second appeals dismissed as abated; cross objection petitions dismissed.

Neelambal Vs Kattupalayam Sri Mariamman — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 02.01.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

SA.Nos.1198 & 1199 of 1993 and 1470 of 1997 and Cros.Obj.Nos.179 & 180 of 1993

¶6

SA.No.1198 of 1993

¶7

Neelambal ..Appellant Vs.

¶8

Kattupalayam Sri mariamman koil by Hereditary Trustees 1.G.Krishnasami Padayachi 2.V.Rangadas Naidu 3.Rajan Ammal 4.Dayalan 5.Rajaram 6.Lakshmi 7.Sekar ..Respondents

¶9

(RR3 to 7 are brought on record as LR of the deceased second respondent vide order of court dated 13.02.2007 made in CMP.No.19 & 20 of 2007)

¶10

PRAYER: The Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 21.04.1993 in A.S.No.69 of 1991 on the file of the Additional District Court, S.Arcot at Cuddalore preferred against the judgment and decree dated 20.09.1990 in O.S.No.112 of 1989 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Cuddalore.

SA.No.1199 of 1993

Neelambal

..Appellant

Vs.

1.Venugopal Chettiar @ Durai

¶16

2.Krishnaswami Padayachi

¶17

3.Rangadas Naidu(deceased)

¶18

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

¶19

4.Rajam Ammal 5.Dayalan 6.Rajaram 7.Lakshmi

¶20

8.Sekar ..Respondents

¶21

(RR4 to 8 are brought on record as LR of the deceased R3 vide order of court dated 07.06.2010 made in CMP.No.1170 to 1172 of 2007)

¶22

PRAYER:

¶23

The Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 21.04.1993 in A.S.No.70 of 1991 on the file of the Additional District Court, S.Arcot at Cuddalore preferred against the judgment and decree dated 20.09.1990 in O.S.No.8 of 1990 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Cuddalore.

¶24

For Appellant : No Appearance For Respondents For R1,2, 4to 8: Mr.S.K.Raghunathan : R3 – died SA.No.1470 of 1993 Neela Ammal ..Appellant Vs. Krishnaswamy ..Respondent PRAYER: The Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.1994 in A.S.No.42 of 1993 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Cuddalore Confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1992 in O.S.No.525 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Cuddalore.

¶25

For Appellant : No Appearance For Respondent : Mr.S.K.Raghunathan ORDER:

¶26

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the sole appellant died. He also submitted no instruction from the legal heirs of the sole appellant.

¶27

It is seen that the legal heirs of the deceased sole appellant have not taken any step to proceed with the second

¶28

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

¶29

appeals. Therefore, these second appeals are dismissed as abated. Insofar as the petitions in Cros.Obj.Nos.179 & 180 of 1993 are concerned, they also did not take any step to bring the legal heirs of the sole respondent on record. Therefore, the cross objection petitions are also dismissed. No costs.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶32

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
lok
To
1.The Additional Sub Court,
Cuddalore.
2.The District Munsif Court,
Cuddalore.
3.The Additional District Court,
S.Arcot, Cuddalore.
Copy TO
The Section Officer,
V.R. Section, High Court,
Madras.(2 copies)
+3cc to Mr.R.Subramanian, Advocate, S.R.No. 224, 225, 653
+1cc to Mr.S.K.Raghunathan, Advocate, S.R.No. 163
SA.Nos.1198 & 1199 of 1993 and 1470 of 1997
and Cros.Obj.Nos.179 & 180 of 1993
BS(CO)
GN(31/01/2020)

¶33

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

Neelambal v. Kattupalayam Sri Mariamman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelambal v. Kattupalayam Sri Mariamman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ranga Gounder Vs Kandapadayachi @ Kandasamy

B. Duraipandi Vs The Inspector of Police

Maraiyan (Deceased) Vs Ayyavu @ Abdul Masjid

Baby @ Saroja, Vs Kuppuswamy Iyengar

G.Krishnamurthy Vs Fathima Beevi(Died)

Muthusamy, S/O Chidambara Vs 1.PACHAMUTHU Ammal