Second appeal in a property suit, dismissed as default because the first appellant had died and steps to bring the deceased third respondent's heirs on record were not taken within the stipulated limitation period.
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.No.1677 of 2001
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 13.12.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
S.A.No.1677 of 2001
1.Mathisa Pandian 2.Durai Pandian 3.Ashokan @ Ashok Pandian (A3 is impleaded as per the order of the Court
dated 07.03.2003 made in C.M.P.No.5133 & 5134 of 2002)
...Defendants 1 &2 /Respondents 1 & 2/ Appellants -Vs1.J.Samuel ...Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent 2.Beula 3.Daniel 4.Aldrin 5.Vimala 6.Sudhakar ...Defendants 4 to 8/Respondents 3 to 7/ Respondents 2 to 6
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and decree dated 19.12.2000 made in A.S.No.18 of 2000 on the file of the 1st Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 09.07.1999 made in O.S.No.64 of 1998 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli.
Page 1 of 3
S.A.No.1677 of 2001
For Appellants : Mr.J.Antony Jesus for A1 Mr.D.Gnanasekaran for A2 Mr.C.Ravichandran for A3 For Respondents : Mr.D.Nallathambi for R1 Tapal returned for R3 and R5
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and decree dated 19.12.2000 made in A.S.No.18 of 2000 on the file of the 1st Additional District
Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 09.07.1999 made in O.S.No.64 of 1998 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli.
2.When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the first appellant submitted that the first appellant died and he is unable to conduct the party. R3 also died and steps have not been taken within the period of limitation as stipulated and they are not ready to take the appeal.
3.In view of the above, this Second Appeal is dismissed as default. No
costs.
13.12.2024 2/2
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis RJR
Page 2 of 3
S.A.No.1677 of 2001
V.SIVAGNANAM. J,
RJR
To
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
S.A.No.1677 of 2001
13.12.2024 2/2
Page 3 of 3
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mathisa Pandian
Durai Pandian
Ashokan @ Ashok Pandian
J.Samuel
Beula
Daniel
V.Sivagnanam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
