Kadirvel vs Ammaniammal
2021 Latest Caselaw 2156 Mad

   1                                                        S.A.No.968 of 2008




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                Dated : 01.02.2021

                                   CORAM

           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN

                              S.A.No.968 of 2008

Kadirvel                              ...                 Appellant

                                      Vs.

1.Ammaniammal
2.Papathi @ Gowriammal
3.Periyasamy                          ...                 Respondents



Prayer: The second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of Civil
Procedure Code against the Judgment and decree dated 24.01.2008 made in
A.S.No.139 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Erode,
confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2005 made in O.S.No.1177 of
2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Erode.



            For Appellant             : Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran

            For Respondent            : Mr.V.Raja
            Nos.1 & 2

            Respondent No.3           : No appearance
   2                                                       S.A.No.968 of 2008




                                JUDGMENT

Both counsel present. Memo has been filed by the appellant's counsel

informing that he had been instructed to withdraw the second appeal by the

appellant and accordingly, prays the Court to dismiss the second appeal as

withdrawn.

2.The memo is taken on record.

3.However, the counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 contended that he is

opposing the abovesaid memo on the footing that the preliminary decree

passed by the Courts below is required to be modified in the light of the

decision of the Apex Court reported in 2020 5 CTC 302 (Vineeta Sharma Vs.

Rakesh Sharma) and also would state that he has filed a memo pointing to the

same and only after coming to know of the abovesaid fact, the appellant's

counsel has filed the memo seeking permission to withdraw the second appeal.

4.The second appeal arises out of the suit for partition and challenge in

the second appeal is made against the preliminary decree passed in the suit.

5.Considering the abovesaid factors, in my considered opinion, if the

respondents are entitled to seek the modification of the quantum of shares as

per the law laid down by the Apex Court reported in 2020 5 CTC 302 (Vineeta

Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma), to meet the ends of justice, the respondents are

directed to take up the said plea as per law in the final decree proceedings and

the Court concerned may consider the said plea and pass appropriate orders

with reference to the same and allot the due shares to the parties concerned in

the final decree application.

6.With the abovesaid observations and in the light of the memo filed by

the appellant's counsel as abovestated, the second appeal is dismissed as

withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any,

is closed.

Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No                                                01.02.2021
sms
To

1.The Principal Subordinate Court, Erode.

2.The Principal District Munsif Court, Erode.

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

T.RAVINDRAN,J.

sms

S.A.No.968 of 2008

01.02.2021