B.Rajalakshmi vs N.Venkatasubramanian
2022 Latest Caselaw 4159 Mad

                                                                                     S.A.No.855 of 2001


                         BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                   DATED : 03.03.2022

                                                        CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

                                                  S.A.No.855 of 2001
                                                         and
                                           C.M.P.Nos.18957 and 18958 of 2002

                     B.Rajalakshmi                                            ... Appellant

                                                         versus

                     1. N.Venkatasubramanian
                     2. S.Sethuram                                            ... Respondents

                                  Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the
                     Judgment and Decree dated 07.03.2001 made in A.S.No.10 of 2000 on
                     the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti, reversing the Judgment
                     and Decree dated 30.06.2000 made in O.S.No.71 of 1999 on the file of
                     the District Munsif, Kovilpatti.


                                       For Appellant   : Mr.J.Parekhkumar
                                                         for M/s.P.Srinivas

                                       For R1          : Died
                                       For R2          : No appearance

                     1/4



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                        S.A.No.855 of 2001


                                                        JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in O.S.No.71 of 1999 is the appellant in the second

appeal. The plaintiff is the wife of the second defendant. The

defendants carried on business in partnership, which had come to be

dissolved under Ex.B1 dated 31.12.1998. The partnership was

constituted under Ex.B9/partnership deed dated 20.05.1998. The suit is

laid on Ex.A1 dated 07.09.1998 entered into between the plaintiff on

the one hand and the defendants on the other hand regarding the leasing

of certain movables belonging to the plaintiff in favour of the firm.

The relief prayed for in the suit is for a mandatory injunction directing

the first defendant to return the movables mentioned in the plaint as

well as for arrears of lease amount together with future mesne profits.

The defence of the first defendant was that the movables shown in the

plaint was given by the second defendant in lieu of his capital to the

firm and therefore, it is the asset of the firm itself. He also contended

that Ex.A1 is a fabricated document, on a paper containing the

signature of D1 and D2. The trial Court decreed the suit and on appeal,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.855 of 2001

the appellate Court reversed it. Aggrieved over the same, the second

appeal has been filed.

2. When the second appeal was taken up for hearing on

19.06.2017, it was reported that the sole appellant and the first

respondent died. Therefore, the matter was adjourned to 05.07.2017

for taking steps to bring on record the legal heirs of the deceased sole

appellant and the first respondent. Even thereafter, no steps were taken

to bring on record the legal heirs of the deceased sole appellant and the

first respondent.

3. In such circumstances, the second appeal is dismissed as

abated. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are

closed.

03.03.2022

ogy

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.855 of 2001

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

ogy

To

1. The Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti.

2. The District Munsif, Kovilpatti.

S.A.No.855 of 2001

03.03.2022

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