Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
IYYAYIRAM – Appellant
Versus
GOVT OF TAMIL NADU – Respondent
SA 58/2017
['P - IYYAYIRAM W/O LATE SUBRAMANIAN', 'TO RES AT GANDHI NAGAR', 'KADAMPULIYUR & POST', 'PANRUTI TK', '', 'VIDE COURT ORDER DATE', 'M/S R VIJAYAKUMAR', '', 'R- RADHAKRISHNAN H/O PALANIAMMAL', 'KIZHAKUPPAM VILLAGE', 'PANRUTI TK', 'R- THE BRANCH MANAGER LIC OF INDIA HAVING ITS OFFICE AT KUMBAKONAM ROAD', 'PANRUTI', 'R- PALANIAMMAL D/O KARIAN', 'KIZHAKUPPAM HARIJAN COLONY', 'NADUKUPPAM POST', 'R - GOVT OF TAMIL NADU REP BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR', 'CUDDALORE DISTRICT', 'CUDDALORE', 'R - DIED STEPS TAKEN', 'M SAVITHA DEVI', 'R- THE TAHSILDAR PANRUTI', 'HAVING ITS OFFICE AT TALUK OFFICE', 'FOR RR', '', 'amp', 'M SAVITHADEVI', 'N JAYACHANDER', 'C/V FILED BY M VIDYA', 'F SHAJITHA FARVEEN']
S.A.No.58 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
S.A.No.58 of 2017
&
C.M.P.Nos.850 & 851 of 2017
1.Iyyayiram
2.Pazhanimurugan
3.Selvamurugan
4.Selvi
... Appellants
Vs
1.Govt. Of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by District Collector
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
2.The Tahsildar
Panruti, having its office at
Taluk Office, Panruti.
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.58 of 2017
3.Bakkialakshmi
4.Palaniammal
5.The Branch Manager
LIC of India
Having its office at
Kumbakonam Road
Panruti
6.Vallinayagi
7.Ramanathan
8.Radhakrishnan
9.Mahalakshmi
10.Jothilakshni
11.Baby @ Rathinambal (Died)
12.Rajalakshmi
13.A.Anbarasu
14.Anbuselvi
...Respondents
2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.58 of 2017
(R11 died, R13 & 14 B/R as LRs of the deceased R11 vide Court
order dated 28.10.2022 made in C.M.P.No.6437 of 2018 in S.A.No.58
of 2017).
Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of
Civil Procedure against the Judgement and Decree dated 10.02.2016
passed in A.S.No.21 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Panruti
confirming the Judgement and Decree dated 26.09.2011 passed in
O.S.No.349 of 2000 before the District Munsif's Court, Panruti.
For Appellant
:
No Appearance
JUDGEMENT
On the last occasion, i.e., 18.11.2022, a memo had been filed by
the learned counsel for the appellants stating that she had given a
change of vakalat and that the appellants had taken back the brief
from the learned counsel. Therefore, the Registry was directed to
delete the name of the learned counsels and print the name of the
3/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.58 of 2017
parties.
2. Today, when the matter is called there is no appearance either
in person or through some other counsel on behalf of the appellants.
Therefore, the Second Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No
costs.
22.11.2022
kan
Index: Yes/No
Speaking order/non-speaking order
To
1.The Sub Court,
Panruti.
2.The District Munsif,
Panruti.
4/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.58 of 2017
P.T.ASHA, J.,
kan
S.A.No.58 of 2017
22.11.2022
5/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
