Dismissed

G.R. Thangavelu v. Mrs. G.R. Indira

Madras HC2 Jan 2023AS/660/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a preliminary decree for partition. The court held that since the first respondent (in whose favour the decree was granted) had died, the appeal abated against them. It further found the appeal did not survive against the other respondents either.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as abated against the 1st respondent and consequently dismissed against other respondents. No costs.

G.R. Thangavelu Vs Mrs. G.R. Indira — Partition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

A.S.No.660 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 02.01.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN

¶8

A.S.No.660 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.20073 of 2016

G.R.Thangavelu

...Appellant

-Vs-

1.G.R.Indira

2.G.R.Balasubramaniam

¶14

3.Vasanthakumari @ Vasantha Bala 4.G.R.Girija 5.S.G.Ramkumar 6.S.G.Shanmugasundaram(Died)

¶15

7.Gomathi Sundaram

¶16

8.Suresh Sundaram

¶17

9.Shobana Sundaram

¶18

...Respondents

¶19

Prayer:- Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2016 made in O.S.No.529 of 2004 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

1/4

¶22

A.S.No.660 of 2016

¶23

For Appellant : Ms.K.Abhiname for Mr.V.Raghavachari For R1 : Mr.C.D.Sugumar

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

[Judgment of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J .,]

¶26

When the matter was earlier listed on 12.12.2022 it was reported that the

¶27

1^st respondent in the appeal died in the year 2018. Taking note of the fact that steps had not been taken, this Court observed that the appeal is liable to be dismissed as abated as against the 1^st respondent.

¶28

2.It is now admitted that the appeal is against the decree granting preliminary decree for partition in favour of the plaintiff/1^st respondent against the appellant. Having regard to the admitted fact that the 1^st respondent died long back and the appeal stands abated as against the 1^st respondent, this Court finds that the appeal does not survive as against other respondents as well.

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

2/4

¶31

A.S.No.660 of 2016

¶32

3.Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as abated as against the 1^st

¶33

respondent and consequently dismissed against other respondents. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶34

[SSSRJ] [AANJ] 02.01.2023

¶35

cda

¶36

¶37

1.The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.

¶38

2.The Section Officer, VR Records, High Court, Chennai.

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/4

A.S.No.660 of 2016

S.S.SUNDAR, J.,

AND

A.A.NAKKIRAN, J., cda

¶44

A.S.No.660 of 2016

¶45

02.01.2023

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4

G.R. Thangavelu v. Mrs. G.R. Indira

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.R. Thangavelu v. Mrs. G.R. Indira

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

Sarojini William Vs S. William Immanuel Anbarasu @ William Singaram

The Holy Epiphany Church Vs Rt.Rev.Dr. Devasahayam

V.Radhakrishnan Vs Seetha

S.Packialakhmi Vs K.Baskaran

Rajakantham Vs Subbiah

Rajakantham Vs Subbiah