Pappathi v. Thangaraj
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court dismissed the civil second appeal in a matrimonial dispute as the sole respondent had died, deeming no further adjudication necessary.
What did the court decide?
CMSA No.4 of 1998 and connected miscellaneous petition dismissed; no order as to costs.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02-02-2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
CMSA No.4 of 1998 And CMP No.1429 of 1998
Pappathi
..Appellant
vs. Thangaraj ..Respondent
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is preferred under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 30.09.1997 made in CMA No.70 of 1995 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Salem, reversing the common judgment and decree dated 23.11.1992 made in HMOP No.85 of 1986 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankakiri.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Jeremiah For Respondent : Sole Respondent Died
This Court passed an order on 02.03.2020 that the learned counsel for the appellant made a submission that the sole respondent had died and steps are to be taken. Further, on 16.03.2020 also time was granted.
- Perusal of the judgment and decree reveals that the HMOP was filed for dissolution of marriage.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal in a matrimonial dispute should be kept pending when the sole respondent has died?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Pappathi
- respondent
Thangaraj
Coram
S.M.Subramaniam
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court