Madras High Court
Ananthalakshmi vs Govindammal on 21 October, 2021
1 S.A.(MD)No.862 OF 2007
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
S.A.(MD)No.862 of 2007
Rengasamy (Died)
1. Ananthalakshmi
2. Arulmozhi
3. Savithiri
4. Usharani
5. Minor Ilamaran
(Rep. By his mother, guardian and
the third appellant Savithiri) ... Appellants / Respondents /
Defendants
Vs.
Govindammal,
W/o. Dharmalinga Velalar,
Rep. By his Power of Attorney Agent
Chidambaram. ... Respondent / Appellant /
Plaintiff
Prayer: Second appeal filed under Section 100 of
C.P.C., to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed in
A.S.No.2 of 2006 dated 01.09.2006 on the file of the I
Additional Sub Court, Pattukkottai, reversing the Judgment
and Decree passed in O.S.No.125 of 1982 dated 28.09.2000 on
the file of the District Munsif, Pattukkottai and to allow the
second appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/5
2 S.A.(MD)No.862 OF 2007
For Appellants : Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan
For Respondent : No appearance.
***
JUDGMENT
The defendants in O.S.No.125 of 1982 on the file of
the District Munsif Court Pattukkottai, are the appellants
herein.
2. The suit was for permanent injunction restraining
the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's right to use
the suit cart track. The suit was dismissed by judgment and
decree dated 28.09.2000. However, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.2
of 2006 before the Sub Court, Pattukkottai. The first appellate
Court by the impugned judgment and decree dated
01.09.2006 set aside the decision of the trial Court and
decreed the suit as prayed for, by allowing the appeal.
Challenging the same, the defendants have filed this second
appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3. This second appeal was admitted on the following
substantial questions of law:-
“ 1. Whether the judgment and decree
of the first appellate Court is beyond the scope of
the order of remand dated 30.01.1999 passed by
the High Court in S.A.No.1131 of 1987?
2. Whether the lower appellate Court
has committed an error in law in holding that the
respondent / plaintiff was entitled to an
easement of necessity without giving a specific
finding as to whether there was unity of title in
respect of the properties of the appellant /
defendant and respondent / plaintiff at any point
of time? “
4. When the matter was taken up for hearing, it was
submitted that the plaintiff/ respondent herein has since
passed away. However, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent has not furnished the details of the legal heirs of
the plaintiff. The appellants cannot get along with the second
appeal because the respondent is not more. They are not in a
position to file petition for bringing the legal heirs on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5. Therefore, this second appeal is closed and the
appellants are at liberty to revive the second appeal as and
when the legal heirs of the plaintiff file E.P. for enforcing the
decree against them. I make it clear that since the legal heirs
of the respondent have not come on record and since the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent has not
furnished the details to the appellants herein, the appellants
will not be faulted for having violated the impugned judgment
and decree. No costs.
21.10.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PMU
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 I Additional Sub Court,
Pattukkottai.
2. The District Munsif,
Pattukkottai.
3. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
PMU
S.A.(MD)No. 862 of 2007
21.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
