v.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26.10.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN S.A.No. 621 of 1985

1. Meenakshi Ammal

2. Rajendran

3. Jeevarekha ... Appellants/Appellants/ Defendants 1 to 3 Vs.

1. Manimekalai

2. V. Ranganatham Pillai ... Respondents/Respondents/ Plaintiff/4th Defendant Prayer:- This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the decree and judgment dated 04.03.1985 and made in A.S.No.5 of 1984 on the file of the District Court, South Arcot, Guddalore against the decree and judgment dated 30.11.1983 made in O.S.No.12 of 1982 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam.

For Appellants : No Appearance For Respondents: No Appearance

JUDGMENT

The defendants 1 to 3 in the suit are the appellants before this Court. The suit has been filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction and recovery of possession and the appellants lost the case.

2. The plea of the first appellant that she was the "Abimana bariyal" of Subbaraya Pillai was though accepted by the Court below, but in the light of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the right of her children appellant 2 and 3, over the property was denied. Records reveals that having lost before both the Courts below, the second appeal was filed in the year 1985 and the substantial question of law pertaining to the right of the illegitimate children to inherent the property under Section 16(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act was formulated. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. This Court has dismissed the second appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the Courts below on 29.03.1996 holding that the benefit of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act will not be available to the appellants even though the appellants 2 and 3 are admitted to be the children of Subbaraya Pillai.

4. The appellants have taken up the matter to the Hon'ble Apex Court by way of S.L.P.No.12163 of 1996. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has remanded back the matter its order dated 27.08.1997, wherein the Apex Court has pointed out the paradoxical situation that the children born from the loins of the late Pillai and from the womb of the first appellants stands denied the status either of legitimate children or even of illegitimate children because of the language of Section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act which warrants that there should be a void marriage between the parents of such children claiming succession.

5. After the appeal was remanded, the matter was listed for final hearing on 23.01.2015. On that day, there was no representation on behalf of the appellants either in person or through counsel. Therefore, the case was adjourned for appearance of the appellants or for dismissal.

6. Today, in spite of the notice, the appellants have not appeared in person or through counsel and there is no representation for the respondent also. Hence the second appeal is dismissed for non prosecution. No orders as to cost. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. The District Court, South Arcot, Guddalore.

2. The Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam.

3. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras-104.

S.A.No. 621 of 1985 rv[co] srg 23/11/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/