Sahadeva Naicker v. Mr.Chandran
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court dismissed the second appeal as abated because the sole respondent had died and the appellants failed to bring the legal heirs on record.
What did the court decide?
Second appeal dismissed as abated; no costs.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.01.2020
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
SA.No.1571 of 1999
1.Sahadeva Naicker(died)
2.Raja Ammal
3.R.Selvam ..Appellants
Vs.
Chandran ..Respondent
PRAYER:
The Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC against
the judgment and decree dated 02.09.1998 in A.S.No.64 of 1997 on
the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvellore confirming the
judgment and decree dated 07.03.1997 in O.S.No.188 of 1990 on
the file of the District Munsif, Tiruvellore.
For Appellants : No Appearance
For Respondent : Notice served -
No Appearance
JUDGMENT
The second appeal is directed as against the judgment and decree dated 02.09.1998 in A.S.No.64 of 1997 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvellore confirming the judgment and decree dated 07.03.1997 in O.S.No.188 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruvellore.
- It is seen that the sole respondent died long back. However, even till today, the appellants did not take any step to bring the legal heirs of the deceased sole respondent. Therefore, this second appeal is liable to be dismissed as abated as against the sole respondent.
1/4
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the second appeal abates because the sole respondent died without the legal heirs being impleaded.
Whether the legal heirs of the deceased respondent should have been brought on record before dismissal.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Sahadeva Naicker (died)
- appellant
Raja Ammal
- appellant
R.Selvam
- respondent
Chandran
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court