K.M.Natarajan(Died) Vs C.Ammaniammal(died) — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

K.M.Natarajan(Died) Vs C.Ammaniammal(died) — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellants; appeal dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/- imposed, payable directly to the Advocate Commissioner; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

Ratio / Principle

The second appeal is dismissed in view of the appellants' counsel's submission that the appellant instructed him to withdraw the appeal and the memo dated 27.01.2025 filed to that effect, taken on record.

Key takeaways

A cost of Rs.20,000/- is imposed on the appellants, payable to the Advocate Commissioner, because although the Commissioner was appointed and an order passed to pay his fees, the appellants did not co-operate; they instructed counsel to not-press the appeal only after the Commissioner had taken the warrant and initiated action to visit the suit property.ratio¶25
The imposed cost is payable directly to the Commissioner, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT — S.A. No. 1564 of 2011 (Second Appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) — R.N. Manjula, J. — 30.01.2025. Second appeal by the legal representatives of the deceased sole appellant K.M.Natarajan (Muthuammal, N.N.Gopal and Mallika impleaded as LRs by order dated 16.04.2021 in M.P. Nos. 1 to 3 of 2015) seeking to set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.06.2011 of the Principal Subordinate Judge Court, Erode in A.S. No. 91 of 2010, which had confirmed the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2010 of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Erode in O.S. No. 566 of 2002. Before any substantive issue was adjudicated, the appellants' counsel (Mr.Deeraj for Mr.G.RM.Palaniappan) submitted that the appellant had instructed him to withdraw the appeal and filed a memo dated 27.01.2025, taken on record. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with cost: Rs.20,000/- imposed, payable directly to the Advocate Commissioner, as the appellants did not co-operate in paying his fees despite his appointment, the fee order, and his having taken the warrant and initiated action to visit the suit property, withdrawing only at that stage. Connected Miscellaneous Petition closed. B.Annakodi had earlier been recorded as legal representative of the deceased first respondent C.Ammaniammal (memo dated 27.04.2021, SR 13918; order dated 26.07.2021).

S.A. No. 1564 of 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30.01.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

S.A. No. 1564 of 2011

K.M.Natarajan(died)

2.Muthuammal

3.N.N.Gopal

4.Mallika

(Appellant 2 to 4 impleaded as LR of the deceased sole appellant vide order dated 16.04.2021 made in M.P. Nos. 1 to 3 of 2015 in S.A. No.1564 of 2011)

...Appellants

Vs.

1.C.Ammaniammal (died)

2.B.Annakodi

(R2-Legal representative of the deceased as per memo dated 27.04.2021 (SR 13918) vide Court order dated 26.07.2021 made in S.A. No.1564 of 2011, memo recorded.

... Respondents

PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.06.2011 made in A.S. No. 91 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge Court,

1/4

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

S.A. No. 1564 of 2011

Erode, confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2010 made in O.S. No. 566 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Erode. For Appellants : Mr.Deeraj for Mr.G.RM.Palaniappan For Respondents : Mr.N.Manokaran (R2) R1 - died Mr.Manoj Kumar Advocate Commissioner

JUDGMENT

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellant has instructed him to withdraw this appeal and on instructions, he has filed a memo dated 27.01.2025 to that effect before this Court, which is taken on record.

In view of the submissions made and also considering the memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellants, this appeal is dismissed with cost. Despite the Commissioner has been appointed and an order has been passed to pay his fees, but the appellants did not co-operate for the same. All of a sudden, they instructed him to not-press this appeal, after the commissioner has taken the warrant and initiated action to visit the suit property and by attending the Court to make a representation in this regard on more than one occasion. Hence, a cost of Rs.20,000/- is imposed to be payable to the

2/4

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

S.A. No. 1564 of 2011

Commissioner directly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

30.01.2025

Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No Maya

To

The Principal Subordinate Judge Court, Erode.

The Judge, II Additional District Munsif Court, Erode.

The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.

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

S.A. No. 1564 of 2011

R.N.MANJULA, J.

Maya

S.A. No. 1564 of 2011

Dated : 30.01.2025

4/4

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