This order dismissed petitions to record legal representatives of a deceased sole appellant as appellants and to implead his wife as a respondent. The court held that petitioners could not prosecute the appeal as they do not succeed to the estate due to the survival of the Class-I heir (the wife).
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.
S.A.(MD) No.1004 of 2005
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )
Monday, the Second day of January Two Thousand and Twenty Three
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.SOUNTHAR
1 CHANDRASEKAR(DIED)
2 ANBU GNANAM
3 LILLY RAJAM
4 JOSEPH
5 MICHAEL RAJ ... PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS AND PROPOSED APPELLANTS 2 TO 5 IN ALL THE PETITIONS
Vs
1 JESUKARAN SALOMAN
2 SEENI VAITHILINGAM ... RESPONDENTS 1 & 2/RESPONDENTS IN ALL THE PETITIONS
3 J.P.RAMYA RAJAKUMARI ... 3rd RESPONDENT/ PROPOSED 3rd RESPONDENT IN ALL THE PETITIONS
Prayer in CMP(MD). 1163/ 2017 :
Petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 2334 days in seeking to set aside the abatement caused by the death of Chandrasekar, the Sole Appellant in the above Second Appeal.
Prayer in CMP(MD). 1164/ 2017 :
To set aside the abatement caused by the death of Chandrasekar, the Sole Appellant in the above Second Appeal.
Prayer in CMP(MD). 1165/ 2017 :
To bring on record Petitioners 2 to 5 herein who are the Legal Representatives of the deceased Sole Appellant Chandrasekar as Appellants 2 to 5 in the above Second Apeal and the 3rd Respondent https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/3
S.A.(MD) No.1004 of 2005
herein as Legal Representative of the deceased Sole Appellant Chandrasekar as 3rd Respondent in the above Second Appeal.
PRAYER IN SA(MD).1004/2005:
Pleased to second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi dated 28-04-2005 in A.S.No.41 of 2004 reversing the Judgment and decree of the Learned Principal District Munsif, Tenksi dated 16-04-2004 in O.S.No.58 of 2004.
COMMON ORDER : These petitions coming up for orders on this day, upon perusing the petitions and the affidavits filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.J.ASHOK, Advocate for the petitioner in all the Petitions and of Mr.T.A.EBENAZER, Advocate on behalf of the 1st Respondent in all the Petitions, the court made the following order:-
Petitioners 2 to 5 already filed M.P(MD) Nos.1 to 3 of 2012 with a prayer to bring them on record as legal representatives of the deceased sole appellant Chandrasekar, to set aside the abatement and to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the abatement.
sd/02/01/2023 / TRUE COPY / /01/2023
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
2/3
S.A.(MD) No.1004 of 2005
ABR TO
ORDER
IN
C.M.P.(MD) Nos.1163 to 1165 of 2017 in
S.A.(MD) No.1004 of 2005
Date :02/01/2023
SA/SSS/SAR.3/05.01.2023/3P/6C
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners are entitled to be brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased sole appellant to prosecute the appeal.
Whether the court can implead the deceased sole appellant's wife as a respondent in the appeal against her consent while petitioners lack estate succession rights.
ANBU GNANAM
LILLY RAJAM
JOSEPH
MICHAEL RAJ
JESUKARAN SALOMAN
SEENI VAITHILINGAM
S.SOUNTHAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
