Madras High CourtSA(MD)/736/2015dismissed

Mumtaz, v. Piyari Beevi,

2022-04-18Honourable Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.04.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY 1.Mumtaz 2.M.B.Ghouse Moideen 3.M.B.Basheer Muhammed 4.M.B.Feroz 5.Shamshad Begum 6.Anarkali @ Anu ... Appellants/Appellants/ Defendants 22 - 27 -vs1.Piyari Beevi 2.M.Masthan 3.Fathima 4.Nargis 5.Ajeesbanu 6.Rahmathjaan 7.Fathimajaan 8.Hussain Kuthoos 9.Sahul Hameed 10.Kamaludeen 11.Razi Khan 12.Azad 13.Mallikajaan 14.S.Johny Basha 15.Heerajaan 16.Rahmatjaan 17.Ramija 18.A.Basheer Ahamed 19.K.Kaleel Ahamed 20.Gulzar Begum 21.M.Nawab John 22.S.Shanawaz Khan @ Khaja 23.C.Usha Kiran 24.Kuthubudeen 25.S.Shammi Kapoor 26.S.Sadiq Batcha 27.S.Sharmila 28.Mallika Jaan 29.Umarsha 30.Kaisar Jaan 31.Umar Faiz ... Respondents/Respondents/ Plaintiffs 1,2,4 & 5 and defendants 2 to 10, 12 to 17, 19, 21, 28 to 37 1/3

Prayer :- The second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to reverse and set aside the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.12/2005, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Dindigul, dated 28.09.2006 in confirming the judgment and decree of the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul in O.S.No.588/1995, dated 30.12.2004.

For Appellants : Mr.S.Ramesh For R2,7 to 14, 16, 17, 20 to 31 : Mr.D.Nallathambi

JUDGMENT

It is seen from the records that suit in O.S.No.588 of 1995 was filed by the plaintiffs for partition. In the said suit, on 30.12.2004 the Sub-Court, Dindigul has passed the Preliminary Decree. Aggrieved over the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.588 of 1995, the plaintiffs have filed an appeal in A.S.No.12 of 2005 before the Principal District Court, Dindigul. The Principal District Court, Dindigul by order dated 28.09.2006 dismissed the appeal by confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the SubCourt, Dindigul. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the appellants have filed the present Second Appeal.

2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that pending second appeal, final decree was passed and there is no bar for executing the judgment and decree passed in the final decree application and accordingly it was executed. Therefore, he submits that nothing survives in this second appeal.

3. The challenge in the present case against the preliminary decree. Now, the final decree was passed and the same was executed. Under these circumstances, I do not see anything left for adjudication further or otherwise, hence the same is liable to be dismissed.

4. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that nothing survives further for adjudication in this matter. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-III) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) am 2/3

To 1.The Principal District Judge, Dindigul.

2.The Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.

+1 CC to M/s.V. RAGHAVACHARI, Advocate ( SR-19196[F] dated 19/04/2022 ) Dated: 18.04.2022 RK(13/05/2022) 3P 4C 3/3