Nambi Ramakrishnaiah (Died) v. P.Varadhaya

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 30.01.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH Second Appeal Nos.1416 & 1417 of 2003 1.Nambi Ramakrishnaiah (died) 2.Thayarammal (2nd appellant brought on record as LRS of the deceased 1st appellant vide order of Court dated 30/01/2017 and made herein) ...

Appellants in both S.As/ Plaintiffs in O.S.No.218/95/ Defendants in O.S.No.72/96 vs P.Varadhaya ...

Respondent in both S.As/ Defendant in O.S.No.218/95 Plaintiff in OS.No.72 /96 Prayer in S.A.No.1416 of 2003:- Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2003 passed in A.S.No.2 of 2001 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, Vellore District confirming the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif -Cum-Judicial Magistrate No.I, , Walajapet dated 31.10.2000 in O.S.No.218/1995.

Prayer in S.A.No.1417 of 2003:- Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2003 passed in A.S.No.31 of 2001 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, Vellore District confirming the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif -CumJudicial Magistrate No.I,, Walajapet dated 31.10.2000 in O.S.No.72/1996.

For Appellants in both S.As :

Ms.Dhakshayani Reddy For Respondent in both S.As :

M/S.S.V.Ramamoorthy

COMMON JUDGMENT A suit in O.S.No.218 of 1995 has been filed by the appellants herein in respect of wall and a suit in O.S.No.72 of 1996 has been filed by the respondent herein claiming half share in the well. Both the Courts have decreed the suit filed by the respondent and dismissed the suit filed by the appellants. Challenging the same, the present Second Appeals have been filed by the appellants.

2.It appears that the appellants have filed an application to bring on record the second appellant herein as the legal representative of the first appellant. Unfortunately, the said application is missing on the file of this Court. In any case, the second appellant is also one of the legal representative of the first appellant. Thus, there is no question of abatement will come. Therefore, the second appellant is treated as the sole appellant in both these second appeals.

3.Coming to the merits of the case, it is submitted by the learned counsel for both parties that neither any wall nor any well is in existence as of now, in the suit property. Thus, both the wall and the well has been destroyed. Now what is available is only a vacant site in the suit property. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it would be futile to go further into the matter. Even on merit, this Court does not find any room to interfere with the concurrent finding, on facts. 4.In the result, both the Second Appeals are dismissed thereby confirming the decree and judgment passed by the Courts below. However, liberty is given to the parties to work out their remedies in the manner known to law based on the present factual aspects, if they so advised. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

To 1.The District Munsif -Cum- Judicial Magistrate No.I,, Walajapet 2.The Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, Vellore District.

+1cc to M/S.Dakshayani Reddy, Advocate Sr.5673 +1cc to M/S.S.V.Ramamurthy, Advocate Sr.5609 S.A.Nos.1416 & 1417 of 2003 vd[co] srg 17/03/2017