Madras High Court
Rangabashyam vs Gandiammal @ Gandhi on 23 January, 2023
S.A.No.35 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
S.A.No.35 of 2007
and
M.P.No.1 to 3 of 2010
1. Rangabashyam
2. Thirumal
... Appellants
Vs.
1.Gandiammal @ Gandhi
2.Latha
3.Gnanam Udaiyar
... Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure against the judgement and decree of the Principal Subordinate
Judge, Villupuram A.S.No.6/2005 dated 31.08.2005, modifying the
Judgement and Decree of the II Additional District Munsif, Thirukoilur in
OS.No.388 of 2003 dated 12.10.2004.
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.35 of 2007
For Appellant : Mr. J.Srinivasa Mohan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Balakrishnan [R.1]
: R.2 & R.3 [Died vide memo dated
23.08.2011]
JUDGMENT
On the last occasion since steps were not taken to bring on record the
legal representatives of the appellants, the Second Appeal was dismissed as
abated. Thereafter, it came to notice of the Court that the legal representatives
of the 1st appellant is already on record as the 4th and the 5th respondents
who are the children of the 2nd respondent and the daughter of the 1st
respondent. Therefore, the Second Appeal could not be dismissed as abated,
consequently, the matter was listed today under the caption "for
clarification".
2. It is informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the suit
OS.No.388 of 2003 had been filed to declare the settlement deed executed by
the 1st appellant in favour of his wife, the 1st respondent as null and void and
for a consequential injunction. The suit was decreed and in appeal in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.35 of 2007
A.S.No.6 of 2005, the Principal Sub-Judge, Villipuram has reversed the
judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Therefore, the validity of the
settlement deed has been upheld by the 1st Appellate Court.
3. Now, the 1st appellant is no more, his son who is the 2nd appellant is
no more and the 1st respondent who is the wife of the 1st appellant and
mother of the 2nd appellant and the 2nd respondent is also no more. Likewise,
the 2nd respondent is also no more. However, her husband and children are
arrayed as respondents 3 to 5 in the appeal. Apart from the said 2 nd
respondent, the 1st appellant had another daughter by name Kala.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that he has
received oral instruction that the said Kala has purchased the property which
has been settled on the 1st respondent and subsequently settled by the 1st
respondent on the 2nd respondent. By this purchase, the other daughter of the
1st appellant has recognized the right of the deceased 2nd respondent under
the settlement deed executed by her mother, the 1st respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.35 of 2007
4. Both the counsels would submit that they have no instruction from
their party despite the several communication that they have addressed to
them. Though the respondents 4 and 5 are on record and the appeal has not
abated, however, all the legal heirs of the 1st appellant and the 2nd appellant
have not been brought on record to date. Therefore, taking into account the
subsequent purchase by the other daughter of the 1st respondent nothing
survives for consideration in the above appeal. Therefore, the above Second
Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
23.01.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
shr
To
1.The Principal Subordinate Judge, Villupuram.
2.The II Additional District Munsif, Thirukoilur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.35 of 2007
P.T. ASHA, J,
shr
S.A.No.35 of 2007
and
M.P.No.1 to 3 of 2010
23.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
