Madras High Court
Rajammal @ Guruvammal vs Subba Naicker (Died) on 22 November, 2021
S.A.No.1954 of 2000
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
S.A.No.1954 of 2000
and
C.M.P(MD) Nos.5366 to 5368 of 2021
1. Rajammal @ Guruvammal
2. Guruswamy Naicker
3. Ramamurthi @ Kichappan
4. Avudaiammal
5. Guruvammal @ Peddaselvi
6. Neelavathi ... Defendants/Appellants/ Appellants
-vs-
1. Subba Naicker (died)
2. Akkammal
3. Guruvammal
4. Rukmini
5. Krishnammal
6. Vellaiammal
7. Thayammal
8. Rajaguru
9. Seenivasan
10. Narayanasamy
11. Manikandan
12. Sivakuma ... Plaintiffs/ Respondents/ Respondents
(RR 7 to 12 are brought on record
as legal heirs of the deceased R1
vide Court order dated 22.01.2021
made in M.P(MD) Nos.1 to 3 of 2015
in S.A.No.1954 of 2000 by NSKJ)
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1954 of 2000
PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, against the
judgment and decree dated 07.2.1997 made in A.S.No.97 of 1996 on the file
of the Sub-Court, Virudhunagar, confirming the judgment and decree dated
6.7.1995 made in O.S.No.207 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif
Court, Aruppukottai.
For A1, A3 to A6 : Mr.K.Chelladurai
For A2 : Mr.T.K.Gopalan
For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbaraj
JUDGMENT
The present Second Appeal is arising out of suit for partition in
O.S.No.207 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai,
the suit was decreed as prayed for. Against which, the defendants preferred
an appeal in A.S.No.97 of 1996 on the file of the Sub-Court, Virudhunagar,
which was dismissed. As against which, the present Second Appeal has been
filed.
2. Pending Second Appeal, service has not been effected with regard
to R5. The appeal has been dismissed as against R3 and R6 in the year 2012.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1954 of 2000
So far no steps have been taken to restore the appeal by R3 and R6. In the
meantime, the second respondent had passed away on 13.06.2000.
3. Now, C.M.P(MD) No.5366 of 2000 has been filed to condone the
inordinate delay of 7075 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement
caused due to the death of the second respondent. However in the Civil
Miscellaneous Petition, the appellants have also not taken steps to serve the
proposed respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants
have not turned up for taking substitute service. Hence C.M.P(MD) Nos.
5366 to 5368 of 2021 are dismissed for defalut.
5. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed as abated. No costs.
22.11.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1954 of 2000
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ebsi
Note :
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the
order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
To
1. The Sub-Court, Virudhunagar.
2. The District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai.
S.A.No.1954 of 2000
and
C.M.P(MD) Nos.5366 to 5368 of 2021
22.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
