Lilly Sarojini Bai v. Singarayan

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.06.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR S.A.No.406 of 2002 1.Lilly Sarojini Bai 2.Justin Christopher 3.Vadivel Nadar 4.Thangavel Nadar 5.Thankaswamy Nadar 6.Pichai alias Sundaram (died) 7.Vellayyan alias Kumaresan Nadar 8.Kumaradhas 9.Veludhas 10.Murugadas 11.Murugesan 12.Saragam 13.Maheswari (A12 and A13 have been impleaded vide order dated 03.02.2016) .. Appellants Vs.

1/6

1.Singarayan 2.Ananthapadmanabhan 3.Chellappan 4.Thankappan 5.Thankamony 6.Visalakshi 7.Mangalakshi 8.Jaya 9.Chellam 10.Kumar 11.John 12.Sounder 13.Latha 14.Sheela 15.Thankammal 16.Sundara Raj 17.Radhakrishnan 18.Kumaradhas 19.Anitha 20.Vijayan 2/6

21.Manoharan 22.Amutha 23.Kuzhanthavel Nadar 24.Dhiraviyam Nadar 25.Selvaraj 26.Arjunan .... Respondents PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and decree in A.S.No.75 of 1991 dated 02.04.2001 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 19.11.1990 in O.S.No.697 of 1985 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram.

For Appellants : Mr.Sreekumaran Nair For R1, R3 to R22 : Mr.R.Devaraj

JUDGMENT

This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.697 of 1985 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram. 2.The said suit has been filed for the relief of partition and separate possession. The suit was decreed and a preliminary decree was granted. Challenging the same, A.S.No.75 of 1991 was filed by some of the defendants 3/6

in the suit. The said appeal was allowed and the suit came to be dismissed. Challenging the same, the present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs.

3.This Court has already passed orders, dismissing the application filed to implead the legal heirs of the deceased second respondent, who was arrayed as 6th defendant in the suit and the another application filed by the appellants to implead the legal heirs of the 24th respondent, who was arrayed as 2nd defendant in the suit.

4.Considering the fact that it is a partition suit and in view of the dismissal of the appeal as against some of the respondents, this Second Appeal cannot be proceeded with on merits.

5.In fine, this Second Appeal stands dismissed as abated. No costs. Internet :Yes/No 11.06.2025 Index :Yes/No mm 4/6

To 1.Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram.

2.Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram.

3.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

R.VIJAYAKUMAR , J.

mm S.A.No.406 of 2002 11.06.2025 6/6