Dismissed

S.v.Rangaiah Chettiar (Decd) v. 1.R.CHIKRAJ

Madras HC24 Nov 2021OP/948/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras heard an original petition filed under Section 301 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Finding that the petitioner neither appeared nor was represented by a counsel, the court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution and awarded no costs.

What did the court decide?

The Original Petition No.948 of 2000 is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.

S.v.Rangaiah Chettiar (Decd) Vs 1.R.CHIKRAJ — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

O.P. No.948 of 2000

¶7

O.P.NO.948 OF 2000:-

¶8

In the matter of Indian Succession Act of 1925 And

¶9

In the matter of last will of Late.S.V.Rangaiah Chettiar, Ranga Nlayam, Alms House Road, Ooty.

¶10

R.Balakrishnan, S/o.Late Rangaiah Chettiar, No.89, Ranga Nilayam, Alms House Road, Ooty.

¶11

...Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

1.R.Chikraj, S/o.Late Rangaiah Chettiar, No.89, Ranga Nilayam, Alms House Road, Ooty.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

2.R.Govindaraj (deceased),

¶17

S/o.Late Rangaiah Chettiar, 1 & 2 are residing at: No.89, Ranga Nilayam, Alms House Road, Ooty.

¶18

3.G.Saraswathi, W/o.Late Gawandaraj, No.84, Alms House Road, Ooty.

¶19

4.G.Ramesh,

¶20

S/o.Late Gawandaraj, No.84, Ranga Nilayam, Alms House Road, Ooty.

¶21

5.Jayalakshmi, W/o.Srinivasan, 114, A.K.Nagar, Saibaba Mission PO, Coimbatore – 641 011.

¶22

6.G.Anandakrishnan, S/o.Late Gawandaraj, No.84, Ranga Nilayam, Alms House Road, Ooty.

¶23

7.Sundhadevaki,

¶24

W/o.RajaSakaran, 9210, Red Wood Road N.E. B2141 Red Mond, W.A.98052.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

8.Kempammal,

¶28

W/o.Late.S.V.Rangaiah,

¶29

89, Ranga Nilayam, Alms House Road, Ooty.

¶30

...Respondents

¶31

Original Petition praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to 1.the First Respondent/executor of the will dated 15.12.1986 of late Rangaih Chettiar namely Mr.R.Chikraj be removed and replaced with an other executor for the will as this Hon'ble court may deem fit.

¶32

2.Direct the first Respondent/Executor to submit the accounts from 15.12.1986 till

¶33

date.

¶34

3.Pay the cost of the petition.

¶35

This Original Petition coming on this day before this court for hearing and the petitioner and the respondents herein, not appearing in person or by advocate and upon

¶36

reading the petition filed herein and this court having observed that there is no representation on the side of the petitioner, hence, it can now be inferred that the

¶37

petitioner is not interested to prosecute this petition, it is ordered as follows:-

¶38

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

¶39

¶40

That the O.P.No.948 of 2000, be and is hereby dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶41

2.That there shall be no costs.

¶42

WITNESS THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT AT MADRAS AFORESAID, THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021.

¶43

Sd./-

¶44

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (O.S.II) //Certified to be true copy//

¶45

Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.

¶46

COURT OFFICER(O.S.)

¶47

From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments.

¶48

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

VSP

02/12/2021

O.P. No.948 of 2000

ORDER

DATED :24/11/2021

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶56

FOR APPROVAL:21/01/2022

¶57

APPROVED ON:21/01/2022

¶58

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

¶59

¶60

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶61

DATED: 24.11.2021

¶62

CORAM:

¶63

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶64

Original Petition No.948 of 2000

R.Balakrishnan

...Petitioner

Versus

1.R.Chikraj 2.R.Govindaraj (deceased)

¶69

3.G.Saraswathi

¶70

4.G.Ramesh

¶71

5.Jayalakshmi

¶72

6.G.Anandakrishnan

¶73

7.Sundhadevaki

¶74

8.empammal

¶75

...Respondents

¶76

Petition filed under Section 301 of the Indian Succession Act XXXIX of 1925.

¶77

For Petitioner : No appearance

¶78

ORDER

¶79

There is no representation on the side of the petitioner today.

¶80

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

¶81

¶82

When the matter was taken up on 18.11.2021, there was no representation on

¶83

the side of the petitioner. Hence the matter was ordered to be posted today under the

¶84

caption "for dismissal".

¶85

Even today, when the matter is taken up, there is no representation on the side

¶86

of the petitioner. Hence, it can now be inferred that the petitioner is not interested to

¶87

prosecute this petition. Accordingly, the Original Petition is dismissed for non

¶88

prosecution. No costs.

¶89

Sd./-A.Q.J 24.11.2021

¶90

//Certified to be true copy//

¶91

Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.

¶92

COURT OFFICER(O.S.)

¶93

From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶94

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

S.v.Rangaiah Chettiar (Decd) v. 1.R.CHIKRAJ

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.v.Rangaiah Chettiar (Decd) v. 1.R.CHIKRAJ

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

R.Krishnasamy (Decd) Vs K.Srinivasan

Will of M.Venu Vs Ramu

Securities of P.N.Ramanada Vs Lalitha

Taekwondo Association TamilNadu Vs Sports Development Authority of Tamilnadu

Anojan Balasundaram Vs Tammy Dushiyanthy

Md.Istiag Vs Shaik Azeem