T.R.Mohan, Vs Chitra, W/O.Nagarajan

PRAYER :-Appeal suit filed under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2012 in OS No. 89 of 2007 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Madurai.

¶10

For Appellant : Mr.V.Muthukamatchi For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbiah for R2 No appearance for R1

¶11

1/5

¶12

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

¶13

AS(MD). No.55 of 2014

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.)

¶16

On 03.09.2025, we had recorded the facts as follows:

¶17

“The plaintiff in O.S.No.89 of 2007 on the file of the V Additional District Court, Madurai, is the appellant herein. He had filed the suit seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties, and also for a declaration that the settlement deed executed by his wife, Chandra, in favour of the defendants 3 to 6 (his grandchildren) on 29.12.2004, as null and void.

¶18

2 . The defendants 1 and 2 are the daughters of the plaintiff.

¶19

3 . The suit was dismissed on 01.08.2012. Since the properties stood in the name of his wife Chandra, it was held that she had every right to execute the settlement deed in favour of her daughters.

¶20

4 . It is informed that, pending the first appeal, the appellant/plaintiff passed away on 22.12.2021. His only legal heirs are his two daughters viz., the defendants 1 and 2, as his wife had predeceased him. The beneficiaries under the settlement deed are his grandchildren, who are the respondents 3 to 6 / defendants 3 to 6. In view of the same, the relief sought in the suit has abated, as the right

¶21

2/5

¶22

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

¶23

AS(MD). No.55 of 2014

¶24

to sue does not survive.

¶25

5 . The learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to verify the information regarding the death of the appellant.”

¶26

The learned counsel for the appellant sought time to verify the information regarding the death of the appellant.