Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1945 RSA NO. 891 OF 2003 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.07.1997 IN O.S.NO.75/1991 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.1.2003 IN A.S.NO.150/1997 OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD --------- APPELLANT/(1ST RESPONDENT/SUPPLEMENTAL 2ND PLAINTIFF: 1 JANAKI AMMA(DIED), D/O.LATE ITTICHIRI AMMA, RESIDING AT KUNNANGAD HOUSE, MARUTHUR, MANNUR, PALAKKAD TALUK, (LEGAL REP. IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL APPELLANT NO.2) 2 K.ASHA, AGED 47 YEARS, D/O.LATE JANAKI AMMA, NOW RESIDING AT 255, APPER STREET, BALAJI FLAT, SENTHIL NAGAR, THIRUMULLAVAYIL, CHENNAI-641 062. (THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DECEASED SOLE APPELLANT IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.APPELLANT AS PER
ORDER DATED 18.07.2016 IN IA.1531/2015).
BY ADVS. SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD SMT.MINI V.MENON SRI.P.VISHNU PRASAD RESPONDENTS(APPELLANT & 2ND RESPONDENT/DEFENDANTS 2 AND 1: 1 CHAMUNNI, S/O.VEEMBAN, RESIDING AT MALAMPALLAM VEEDU, MANNUR WEST, 2 KRISHNAN, S/O. VEEMBAN, (DIED), RESIDING AT MALAMPALLAM VEEDU, MANNUR WEST, PALAKKAD TALUK. (LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 TO 11) 3 HARIDASAN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O.LATE RSA No.891/2003 2
4 SUNDARI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, D/O.LATE KRISHNAN, 5 MOHANDAS, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O.LATE KRISHNAN, 6 PADMAVATHY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, D/O.LATE 7 INDIRA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, D/O.LATE KRISHNAN, 8 KARTHIYAYANI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, D/O.LATE 9 ANITHA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, D/O.LATE KRISHNAN, 10 VASANTHI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, D/O.LATE KRISHNAN, 11 NANDITHA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, D/O.LATE KRISHNAN, (THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.2 ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 TO 11 AS PER THE ORDER DATED BY ADV.SRI.TOM K.THOMAS
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RSA No.891/2003 3
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that that he has no instructions. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE ln