The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC challenging a partition decree. The appeal abated because the plaintiff-wife died during pendency without impleading her legal representatives, and the court could not decide share entitlements in the absence of interested parties.
Appeal Suit dismissed as abated. No 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.
AS.No.517/2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.12.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
AS.No.517/2011
K.Palanisamy .. Appellant / 2nd Defendant
Vs.
1.Samiyathal 2.Karuppanna Gounder 3.Velappa Gounder 4.Karuppana Gounder [died] 5.Muthappa Gounder 6.Kumarappa Gounder 7.Muthusamy 8.Ramasamy 9.Kolandasamy Gounder 10.Peruyasami Gounder [died] 11.Nachiyappa Gounder 12.Samiyappa Gounder 13.Pavayammal [died] 14.Thangamuthu 15.Vadivel Gounder 16.Kolandasamy Gounder 17.Kuppusami
1
AS.No.517/2011
18.Velusami
18.Velusami 19.Ramasamy Gounder 20.Songappa Gounder 21.Angammal 22.Murugesan 23.Pappathi 24.Muthayammal 25.Sadasivam 26.Saraswathi 27.Thangamuthu 28.Saraswathi 29.Easwari 30.Devi 31.Sampoornam 32.Inbamani 33.Maragatham 34.S.Sadasivam .. Respondents
Prayer:- Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment
and decree passed in OS.No.12/2006 on the file of the learned Additional District Court [Fast Track Court No.1], Erode, dated 30.04.2010. is liable to be set aside insofar as the limitation of share of the appellant is concerned.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Sundaravadhanam For Respondents : No appearance
2
JUDGMENT
AS.No.517/2011
[Judgment of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.,]
3
AS.No.517/2011
filed as a mother of her son entitled to succeed to his estate. It is
also admitted that the appellant filed a petition for divorce and the same was allowed in his favour. However, the 1st
respondent/plaintiff challenged the same before this Court and she died when the proceedings were pending. Though the appellant is not the legal heir of the deceased/plaintiff/1st respondent and the decree obtained by the appellant against her for divorce is not set aside, the question whether the other legal heirs of the deceased/plaintiff are entitled, cannot be decided unless the parties interested are before this Court.
(5) In the said circumstances, this Court has no other option except to dismiss the appeal as abated since no steps have been taken to
being on record, the legal representatives of the deceased/plaintiff/1st respondent.
(6) Hence, this Appeal Suit stands dismissed as abated. No costs.
[SSSRJ] [AANJ] 09.12.2022
AP Internet : Yes
4
AS.No.517/2011
To
5
AS.No.517/2011
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
AND A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.,
AP
AS.No.517/2011
09.12.2022
6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC remains maintainable when the plaintiff-wife died during pendency of proceedings without taking steps to implead her legal representatives.
Whether the shares of the appellant in the suit properties can be decided when other legal heirs of the deceased student are not before the court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.Palanisamy
1.Samiyathal
2.Karuppanna Gounder
3.Velappa Gounder
4.Karuppana Gounder
5.Muthappa Gounder
S.S.SUNDAR
A.A.NAKKIRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
