Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 85998 (MAD)

V.T.R.P.RANGASAMY v. V.T.R.PALANISAMY CHETTAIR(died)

SA/887/2017 · 2025-01-08

R Hemalatha

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

S.A.No.887 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.01.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA S.A.N o.887 of 2017 V.T.R.P.Rangasamy Chettiar (Died) 1.V.T.R.Srinivasan 2. S.Venkatalakshmi 3. Minor.Suriyanarayanan S/o. V.T.R.Srinivasan, Rep. by the next friend/Guardian/Mother Venkatalakshmi ... Appellants ..Vs.. 1.V.T.R.Palanisamy Chettair (died) 2. P.Punithavalli 3. P.Rangasundaram 4. P.Aishwariya ... Respondents R1 Died, R2 to R4 are brought on Record as Legal representatives of deceased R1 vide order of this Court dated 04.03.2024 made in C.M.P.No.1368 of 2024 PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C., against the decree and judgment dated 02.08.2017 in A.S.No.77/2005 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Salem, upholding the decree and judgment dated 22.04.2004 in O.S.No.228/2003 on the file of the Additional Sub Judge, Salem. 1/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.887 of 2017 R. HEMALATHA, J. vum For Appellants : No appearance For Respondents : Mr.K.Selvaraj JUDGMENT When the Second Appeal came up for hearing on 03.01.2025, there was no representation for the appellants and hence was directed to be posted under the caption 'for dismissal'. 2. Even today, i.e., on 08.01.2025, there is no representation for the appellants. The learned counsel for the respondents is present. 3. In view of the same, the Second Appeal is dismissed for non prosecution. No costs. 08.01.2025 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order vum To 1.The II Additional District Judge, Salem. 2.The Additional Sub Judge, Salem. 3.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. S.A.N o.887 of 2017 2/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis