Madras High Court
Shanmugakani vs The District Superintendent Of ... on 22 June, 2023
S.A.(MD).No.59 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
S.A.(MD).No.59 of 2021
1.Shanmugakani
2.Ramesh
3.Maheswari ...Appellants/Appellants/Plaintiffs
Vs.
1.The District Superintendent of Police,
Tuticorin,
Tuticorin District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office,
Tuticorin.
3.Muthu Ravi
4.Raja
5.Muthammal ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants
Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC to set aside the
judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.77 of 2013 dated 03.01.2019 on the file
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).No.59 of 2021
of the Sub Court, Tuticorin, modifying the judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.364 of 2010 dated 02.08.2013 on the file of the Principal District
Munsif Court, Tuticorin.
For Appellants : Mr.Murugan
for Mr.H.Arumugam
For R-1 and R-2 : Mrs.S.Jeyapriya
Government Advocate
For R-3 : No appearance
For R-4 : Mr.R.Jegadeeswaran
For R-5 : Mr.K.Palmurugan
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel for the appellants has been repeatedly seeking
adjournments in the matter. As seen from the earlier proceedings, the matter
was listed before me on 06.04.2023, 13.04.2023 and 08.06.2023. On all the
three hearing dates, the learned counsel for the appellants sought for an
adjournment, whereas, the learned counsel for the respondents was always
ready. In fact, the learned counsel for the fifth respondent has already filed his
written submissions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).No.59 of 2021
2. The dispute involves a declaratory relief as to who is the legally
wedded wife of the deceased Logu. The respondents 3 to 5 have succeeded
before the Lower Appellate Court and they have been declared as legal
representatives of the deceased Logu along with the appellants 2 and 3. The
first appellant, who claims to be the wife of the deceased Logu, has been
excluded as a legal representative of the deceased Logu on the ground that she
has not proved through her oral and documentary evidence that she was the
legally wedded wife of Logu. Admittedly, no documentary evidence was
produced by the appellants/plaintiffs in the suit to prove that the first appellant
was the legally wedded wife of the deceased Logu.
3. The learned counsels for the respondents 4 and 5 submit that in view
of the pendency of the Second Appeal, the Government office in which the
deceased Logu was working are not paying the terminal benefits payable to the
legal heirs of the deceased Logu.
4. This Second Appeal is of the year 2021. Only on the repeated requests
made by the learned counsel for the appellants for an adjournment, repeated
adjournments were granted by this Court. Since the respondents are expressing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).No.59 of 2021
a difficulty in getting the terminal benefits and the learned counsel for the
appellants is also not ready to argue the matter, this Second Appeal will have to
be dismissed for non-prosecution as it can be inferred that the appellants are not
interested in prosecuting this Second Appeal. Accordingly, this Second Appeal
is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.
22.06.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Lm
To
1.The Sub Court,
Tuticorin.
2.The Principal District Munsif Court,
Tuticorin.
3.The District Superintendent of Police,
Tuticorin,
Tuticorin District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office,
Tuticorin
5.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).No.59 of 2021
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
Lm
S.A.(MD).No.59 of 2021
22.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
