Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 18174

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. SOUNTHAR, J
A.Perumal – Appellant
Versus
Irulappan – Respondent
CMP.No.2180 of 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.Kaithamalai Kumaran
For the Respondents: N.Manoharan

Appeal dismissed due to the death of both appellants without legal representation.

Headnote:The judgment pertains to CMP.No.2180 of 2023, where the appellants, A.Perumal and P. Soundarajan, were represented by S.Kaithamalai Kumaran while the respondent, Irulappan, was represented by N.Manoharan. The court determined that both appellants were deceased with no legal representatives coming forward, leading to the dismissal of the second appeal as abated based on their absence in proceedings. Furthermore, the court's final conclusion stated that the connected miscellaneous petition is closed, with no costs awarded.

JUDGMENT

The learned counsel for the appellants submits that both the appellants are no more and the legal representatives of the deceased appellants have not approached the counsel for the appellants for taking steps.

2. Recording the said statement, the second appeal is dismissed as abated.

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 18174

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASS. SOUNTHAR, JA.Perumal – AppellantVersusIrulappan – RespondentCMP.No.2180 of 2023

Appeal dismissed due to the death of both appellants without legal representation.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. SOUNTHAR, J
A.Perumal – Appellant
Versus
Irulappan – Respondent
CMP.No.2180 of 2023