Sundari v. Kuttiyappan
Case brief
What is this about?
The court dismissed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure as abated because the sole appellant and first respondent had died without their legal heirs being brought on record.
What did the court decide?
The Second Appeal is dismissed as abated. No costs connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 09.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTIC E R. HEMALATHA
S.A.No.108 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008
Sundari
... Appellant/Respondent/Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Kuttiyappan 2.Saravanan ... Respondents/Appellants/Defendants
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure against the decree and judgment dated 30.11.2006 in A.S. No. 18 of 2005, on the file of District Judge, Nagapattinam, reversing the decree and judgment dated 10.08.2004 in O.S.No.167 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Sub-Court, Nagapattinam.
For Appellant : Mrs. Sugirdha Selvaraj R1 : Died R2 : Not ready in notice.
JUDGMENT
It is seen from the records that the sole appellant and the first respondent died and till date no steps have been taken to bring on record the legal heirs of the deceased sole appellant and the first respondent.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second appeal could proceed in the absence of the legal heirs of the deceased appellant and first respondent.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Sundari
- respondent
Kuttiyappan
- respondent
Saravanan
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court