Madras High Court
Chandra @ Chandramathi vs Pitchammal ... 1St on 6 June, 2025
SA(MD)No.117 of 2019
THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
S.A.(MD).No.117 of 2019
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.3023 of 2019
Chandra @ Chandramathi ... Appellant/Appellant
Vs
1.Pitchammal ... 1st Respondent/
1st Respondent/
Plaintiff
2.Antony Raj
3.Michael Raj
4.The Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Tirunelveli. ... Respondents 2 to 4/
Respondents 2 to 4/
Defendants 2 to 4
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code, to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.128 of
2012 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli, dated
10.06.2014, confirming judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1316 of
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/06/2025 10:44:57 am )
SA(MD)No.117 of 2019
2004 on the file of the 1st Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli,
dated 20.06.2011.
For Appellant : Mr.M.P.Senthil
For R1 : Died
For R2 & R3 : No Appearance
For R4 : Mr.B.Saravanan
Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
This second appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and
decree dated 20.01.2022 passed in A.S.No.128 of 2012 on the file of the
Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli, dated 10.06.2014, confirming
judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1316 of 2004 on the file of the 1st
Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, dated 20.06.2011.
2. The parties are referred, as per the litigative status before the
Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli,
3. Originally, the first respondent, namely, Pitachammal had filed a
suit in O.S.No.1316 of 2014 as against the appellant, the respondents 2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/06/2025 10:44:57 am )
and 3, who are the children of the appellant and the fourth respondent.
The relief sought for in this suit was to declare the first respondent as the
legally wedded wife of Maria Chelldurai and she is entitled to the
retirement benefits of Maria Chelldurai. The Trial Court, by judgment
and decree, dated 20.06.2011, partially decreed the suit declaring the first
respondent, Pitachammal as the first wife of deceased Maria Chelldurai
and held that she is entitled to receive the equal share in the death
benefits of her deceased husband, namely, Maria Chelldurai along with
the respondents 2 and 3, who are the children of the appellant. Assailing
the judgment and decree, the appellant preferred first appeal in
A.S.No.128 of 2012 before the Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli. By
judgment and decree, dated 10.06.2014, the appeal came to be dismissed.
Against which the appellant has preferred the above second appeal.
4. The appellant had not taken any steps to serve notice on the first
respondent. Therefore, the appeal as against the first respondent came to
be dismissed as early as on 18.02.2020. In the first appeal, when already
50% of the benefits has been granted in favour of the children of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/06/2025 10:44:57 am )
appellant, who are the defendants 2 and 3 in the suit, the only relief
sought for by the appellant in this appeal is against the plaintiff/first
respondent, namely, Pitachammal, as she has been declared as first wife
and 50% of the retirement benefits has been granted to her. When already
the appeal as against the first respondent has been dismissed by this
Court on 18.02.2020 itself, effectively nothing more survives for
adjudication in this appeal as already the balance 50% of the retirement
benefits had been granted in favour of the children of the appellant.
5. It is unfortunate to note that even after 5 years lapsed, appellant
had not chosen to take any steps to restore the appeal as dismissed
against the contesting first respondent.
6. In view of the same, since the appeal as against the contesting
first respondent has been dismissed in the year 2020 itself and no steps
have been taken by the appellant, nothing survives for further
adjudication in this appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/06/2025 10:44:57 am )
7. Therefore, in such circumstances, the second appeal is
dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.06.2025
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
sn
TO:
1.The Additional Sub Court,
Tirunelveli,
2.The 1st Additional District Munsif Court,
Tirunelveli,
3. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/06/2025 10:44:57 am )
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
Sn
Judgment made in
Dated:
06.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/06/2025 10:44:57 am )
