D.Ramanan, v. Amsavalli
Case brief
What is this about?
In this civil appeal under Section 96 CPC, the single judge held that the appeal abated due to the death of the appellant. However, liberty was granted to the legal representatives to substitute themselves if they desired to proceed.
What did the court decide?
Appeal dismissed as abated on the death of appellant; liberty granted to legal representatives to substitute themselves.
What the court decided
A.S.(MD) No.213 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
A.S.(MD) No.213 of 2015
D.Ramanan ... Appellant -vs1.D.Amsavalli 2.A.Nirmala 3.D.Aruna Kasirajan 4.S.Abithagujalambal 5.Valarmathy ... Respondents
Appeal suit filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, as against the judgment and decree O.S.No.69 of 2012, on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Court, Thanjavur, dated 29.06.2015.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Karnan For Respondents : Mr.A.Saravanan for R1, R3 & R5
Page 1 of 3
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an appeal filed by a deceased appellant without impeading legal representatives has abated.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
D.Ramanan
- respondent
D.Amsavalli
- respondent
A.Nirmala
- respondent
D.Aruna Kasirajan
- respondent
S.Abithagujalambal
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
2 orders share this CNR
- Order 1 — this page · Rmt. Teekaa Raman N.senthilkumar
- Order 2 · G.r.swaminathan R. Kalaimathi
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court