The second appeal was dismissed as having abated since the sole respondent died in 2007 and her legal heirs could not be contacted by the time of hearing.
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 : 16.02.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTIC E R. HEMALATHA
S.A.No. 2248 of 2004 and C.M.P. No.20002 of 2004
Gangiammal ... Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC against the decree and judgment dated 16.07.2004 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ooty, in A.S. No.28 of 2004, upholding the decree and judgment dated 29.10.2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Coonoor, in O.S. No.161 of 1991.
For Appellants : Mr. T. Girish For Respondent : Mr. Shabeer Ali for M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates
JUDGMENT
It is seen from the records that the sole respondent died in the year 2007. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that he is unable to contact the legalheirs of the deceased sole respondent.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
bga
To
+1cc to M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates, Advocate SR.No.10050
S.A.No. 2248 of 2004
SKM(CO)
GMY(25/03/2022)
Y.B. Raju
Seeriammal
Y.A. Mahalingam
Y.A. Jayaraman
Gangiammal
E R. Hemalatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
