The High Court at Madras dismissed the second appeal because the sole respondent was reported dead in 2008, and his legal representatives had not been impleaded, causing the appeal to abate.
The second appeal is dismissed as abated. No order as to costs.
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 : 13.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
S.A.No.1220 of 2008
1.Desire Prosper Rangaraj @ Desire Govindasamy
2.Vijayakumar Charles alias Govindasamy Charles represented by his Power of Attorney Agent Desire Prosper Rangaraj @ Desire Govindasamy viz the I Appellant herein. ... Appellants
Dakshinamoorthy ... Respondent
PRAYER : Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2005 made in A.S.No.16 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal, reversing the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2003 made in O.S.No.63 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Munsif of Karaikal.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Vasudevan
The records would reveal that the sole respondent had been reported dead on 21.11.2008. Till date, no steps have been taken to implead the legal representatives of the deceased sole respondent.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ssn
To
S.A.No.1220 of 2008
srg 06/08/2021
Desire Prosper Rangaraj @ Desire Govindasamy
Vijayakumar Charles alias Govindasamy Charles
Dakshinamoorthy
P.T. Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
