Madras High Court
S.Ponnusamy vs N.Balasubramanian on 5 February, 2021
A.S.No.597 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date: 05.02.2021
Coram::
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
A.S.No.597 of 2010
S.Ponnusamy,
S/o.Subbaraya Gounder ... Appellant
/versus/
1. N.Balasubramanian,
S/o.Nachimuthu.
2. P.Periyasamy,
S/o.Palanisamy Gounder.
3. P.Krishnasamy,
S/o.Palanisamy Gounder. ... Respondents
Prayer: First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the judgment and
decree dated 24.04.2009 passed in O.S.No.52 of 2006 on the file of the Learned
Additional District Judge and Fast Track Court No.IV at Tiruppur.
For Appellants : Mr.S.K.R.Raghunathan
For R1 : Mr.R.Kannan,
For R2 : Died steps not taken
For R3 : No appearance
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.597 of 2010
JUDGMENT
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and the Learned Counsel
for the 1st respondent.
2. On 08.10.2020, when the matter was taken up for final hearing, this
Court found that despite giving time to the appellant to bring LR’s of the deceased
2nd respondent, they have not taken any steps and therefore, an opportunity was given
to take steps and adjourned the case on 02.11.2020. On 02.11.2020 when the case
was listed, the learned Counsel for the appellant sought some more time for taking
necessary steps, hence the case was adjourned to 18.11.2020. On 18.11.2020, when
the matter was listed there was no representation on behalf of the appellant hence,
this court was constrained to adjourn the matter by one week with instruction to list
under the caption, “for dismissal.” On 27.11.2020, when the matter was listed, there
was a request on behalf of the appellant for further adjournment, hence the case
adjourned to be listed on 11.12.2020 on that day also the Learned Counsel for the
appellant sought indulgence for further adjournment, that was also granted.
3. Today (05.02.2021), when the matter was listed, the Leaned Counsel
for the 1st respondent present, but the Appellant counsel sought for further
adjournment stating that the Senior Counsel is engaged otherwise. When this Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.597 of 2010
asked the Counsels, whether steps taken to bring LR’s of the 2nd respondent, there
was no positive response. The notes paper indicates that for taking steps to bring
LR’s of the deceased 2nd respondent, the matter has been adjourned time to time since
05.12.2019. 12 adjournments were given between 07.12.2019 to 11.12.2020 for the
past one year. In spite of granting adjournments to bring LR’s of the 2 nd respondent,
the appellant has not evinced any interest to bring the LR’s of the 2nd respondent.
4. From the facts of the case, this Court finds that the right in the
property is indivisible R2 and R3 have been held as the owner of the property based
on a will executed by one Muthammal. They both had sold the property to 1 st
respondent/Ponnusamy. On failure of bringing the LR’s of the deceased vendor, the
entire suit gets abated.
5. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed as abated. No costs.
05.02.2021
Index :Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order.
bsm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.597 of 2010
Dr.G.Jayachandran,J.
bsm
To:-
1.The Additional District Judge and Fast Track Court No.IV, Tiruppur.
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
A.S.No.597 of 2010
05.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
