Dismissed¶22

B.Lalitha v. a.Sreedevamma

Madras HC7 Apr 2025SA/410/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second Appeal dismissed as abated; death of first Appellant and sole Respondent; legal heirs of Respondent untraceable and not impleaded; Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure; A.S.No.423 of 2008 (16.11.2009); O.S.No.8866 of 2006 (18.09.2007); City Civil Court, Chennai; M.P.No.1 of 2010 closed; no costs; Madras High Court; decided 07.04.2025; no substantive issue adjudicated; no cases cited.

What did the court decide?

The Second Appeal is dismissed as abated because the first Appellant and the sole Respondent have died and the legal heirs of the sole Respondent could not be traced and impleaded; consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition (M.P.No.1 of 2010) is closed, with no costs. ¶22

B.Lalitha Vs a.Sreedevamma — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

S.A.No.410 of 2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 07.04.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

¶6

S.A. No.410 of 2010 and

¶7

M.P.No.1 of 2010

¶8

B.Lalitha

¶9

B.Vijayasri

¶10

V.B.Ramakrishnan 4. V.B.Leela 5. V.B.Ananda Kumar ... Appellants

¶11

Vs.

¶12

A.Sreedevamma ...Respondent

¶13

PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the Judgment and Decree of the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai in A.S.No.423 of 2008 dated 16.11.2009 confirming the Judgment and Decree of the learned XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.8866 of 2006 dated 18.09.2007.

¶14

For Appellants : Mr.B.Divakaran

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

S.A.No.410 of 2010

¶18

For Respondent : No Appearance JUDGMENT

¶19

This Second Appeal has been filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree of the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai in A.S.No.423 of 2008 dated 16.11.2009 confirming the Judgment and Decree

¶20

of the learned XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.8866 of 2006 dated 18.09.2007.

¶21

The learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the first Appellant as well as the sole Respondent died. The Appellants 2 to 5 are the legal heirs of the first Appellant. Since the whereabouts of the sole Respondent are not known to the Appellants, he is unable to implead the Legal Heirs of the sole Respondent.

¶22

In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed as abated. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

07.04.2025

Index:Yes/No

Page 2 of 4

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

¶27

S.A.No.410 of 2010