The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the second appeal under Section 100 CPC on the ground that the sole appellant had died long ago, causing the appeal to abate. A connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.
The second appeal and connected miscellaneous petition were 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.03.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
S.A.No.338 of 2007 & M.P.No.2 of 2007
Marimuthu ... Appellant
Vs
1.Govindammal 2.Kanagambal 3.Kandasamy 4.Palanisamy ... Respondents
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 21.09.2005 made in A.S.No.123 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Court, Namakkal in confirming the Judgement and Decree dated 31.01.2003 made in O.S.No.463 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode.
The learned counsel for the appellant on instructions would submit that the sole appellant died long back and therefore the appeal is abated. The Second Appeal is dismissed as abated. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kan
To
1.The Principal District Judge, Namakkal.
2.The District Munsif Judge, Tiruchengode.
+1cc to Mr.N.Damodaran, Advocate, S.R.No. 18287
S.A.No.338 of 2007 & M.P.No.2 of 2007
SPD(CO) GN(06/08/2020)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second appeal is abated due to the death of the sole appellant.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Marimuthu
Govindammal
Kanagambal
Kandasamy
Palanisamy
P.T. ASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
