← Library
Madras High CourtSA/1878/1999dismissed

Arulmigu Someswara Swamy & v. 1.K.P.Thangavel

2019-09-24Honourable Mr Justice P. Rajamanickam2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 24.09.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM S.A.No.1878 of 1999 and CMP.No.20705 of 1999 Arulmigu Someswara Swamy and Vinayagar Temple Modachur Rep.by its Hereditary Trustee M.S.Sivagiri Gurukkal ... Appellant/Plaintiff Vs.

1.K.P.Thangavel 2.R.Manickam 3.Balasubramaniam 4.Bhuvaneswaran 5.Gopal 6.Pachiammal 7.Minor Senthoor @ Srinivasan ... Respondents/2nd Rep.by his guardian Grand Defendant and third mother Pachiammal Parties/Respondents 2 to 8 PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the decree and judgment dated 21.12.1998 passed in A.S.No.120 of 1995 on the file of the Sub-Court, Gobichettipayalam, preferred as against the decree and judgment dated 13.10.1995 passed in O.S.No.899 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam. For Appellant : Mrs.R.Meenal For Respondents : Mr. M.Guruprasad for R2 to R5

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the Sub-Judge, Gobichettipalayam in A.S.No.120 of 1995 dated 21.12.1998 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam in O.S.No.899 of 1992 dated 13.10.1995.

2. The suit in O.S.No.899 of 1992 had been filed on behalf of Arulmigu Someswara Swamy and Vinayagar Temple Modachur represented by its Hereditary Trustee Mr.M.S.Sivagiri Gurukkal for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit property. The learned District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam by the judgment dated 13.10.1995 had https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

dismissed the said suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff had filed an appeal in A.S.No.120 of 1995 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Gobichettipalayam.

The learned Sub-Judge, Gobichettipalayam by the judgment dated 21.12.1998 had dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff had filed the present Second Appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the hereditary trustee Mr.M.S.Sivagiri Gurukkal, who represented the appellant temple died on 13.12.2012 and the same has been reported to this Court on 26.02.2019. She further submitted that some more time may be granted to substitute the trustee.

4. Eventhough the hereditary trustee Mr.M.S.Sivagiri Gurukkal, who represented the appellant temple died on 13.12.2012, and sufficient time also granted for taking steps to substitute the trustee, so far steps not taken. Hence, the request made by the learned counsel for the appellant is rejected. The second appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant made a request to give liberty for filing restoration petition by other trustees. If law permits, they can file such a petition and for that no permission is required.

-s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-I) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Judge, The Sub-Court, Gobichettipayalam. 2.The District Munsif, The District Munsif Court,Gobichettipalayam.

Copy to The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.

+1 CC to Mr.M.Guruprasad, Advocate sr 82073.

+1 CC to Mr.R. Subramaniyan, Advocate sr 82071. S.A.No.1878 of 1999 and CMP.No.20705 of 1999 VGII(CO) SP(11/11/2019) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/