Judgment · High Court · 2007
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Hence the appeal is dismissed for
Key paragraphs
- Para 1616. SHEENA, HUSBAND OF DECEASED SHANTHA, “SWARNADEEPA', NEAR SEETHARAMA BAJANA MANDIR, KUNJATHUR VILAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK, (VIA) MANJESHWAR. ASHWIN, S/O.DECEASED SHANTHA, “SWARNADEEPA', NEAR SEETHARAMA BAJANA MANDIR, KUNJATHUR VILAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK, (VIA) MANJESHWAR. AVINASH, S/O.DECEASED SHANTHA, “SWARNADEEPA', NEAR SEETHARAMA BAJANA MANDIR, KUNJATHUR VILAGE…
Judgment
APPELLANT(S)(SUPPLEMENTAL APPELLANTS 2 TO 6/LRS OF PLAINTIFF): ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SHARATH KUMAR, S/O.LATE KESHAVA S. AMIN - PLAINTIFF, R/AT D.NO.170, II nd STAGE VIJAYANAGAR, RAILWAY LAYOUT, MYSORE - 570 016 KARNATAKA STATE.
SATHEESH KUMAR,S/O.-DO-, R/AT -DO-
SHUKESH KUMAR,S/O.-DO-, R/AT -DO-
SHAILESH KUMAR, S/O.-DO-, R/AT -DO-
SHUJATHA KUMARI, D/O.-DO-, R/AT -DO- BY ADVS.SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN(SENIOR ADVOCATE)3 SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)(RESPODNENTS 1 TO 7/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 7): ---------------------------- (**) 1. SHANTHA, W/O.SHEENA, “SWARNADEEPA”, NEAR SEETHARAMA BAJANA MANDIR KUNJATHUR VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK (VIA) MANJESHWAR.( DIED. LHRS. IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R14 TO 16)
2. SHEKAR, S/O.LATE KRISHNAPPA,R/AT BEHIND GARAGE, UDYAVAR VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK P.O MANJESHWAR, KASARGOD DISTRICT.
3. HARI, S/O.-DO-, R/AT -DO-
4. RAMDAS, S/O.-DO-, R/AT -DO- RSA NO.900/2011 3
5. KASTURI, S/O.-DO-, R/AT -DO-
BHASKAR,S/O.-DO-, R/AT -DO- (*)
KALAVATHI RAJ,W/O.RAGHAVENDRAJ, R/AT BLOCK NO.38, II FLOOR SHIVALAI MOTHILAL MANSION, BOMBAY CENTRAL, MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA STATE. (DIED. LHRS. IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R8 TO 13) (*)ADDL.RESPONDENTS 8 TO 13 (LRS OF 7TH RESPONDENT)
BHARATHI RAJ ROY , S/O.DECEASED KALAVATHI RAJ, KALPATHARU ROYALS FLAT, NO.23, 2nd FLOOR, ROAD NO.29, SION EAST, MUMBAI-400 022. BHUSHAN RAJ, S/O.DECEASED KALAVATHI RAJ, VICEROY PART, TOWER 6A, THAKUR VILLAGE, KANDIVALI, MUMBAI-400 001. BIPIN RAJ, S/O.DECEASED KALAVATHI RAJ, R/AT BLOCK NO.38, II FLOOR, SHIVALAL MOTHILAL MANSION, BOMBAY CENTRAL, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA STATE. BHANU RAJ, S/O.DECEASED KALAVATHI RAJ, R/AT BLOCK NO.38, II FLOOR, SHIVALAL MOTHILAL MANSION, BOMBAY CENTRAL, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA STATE. BRAJESH RAJ, S/O.DECEASED KALAVATHI RAJ, R/AT BLOCK NO.38, II FLOOR, SHIVALAL MOTHILAL MANSION, BOMBAY CENTRAL, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA STATE BHAKTHI RAJ, S/O.KALAVATHI RAJ, RUSTUM OZONE, FLAT NO.901, GUREAGON WEST, BEHIND MTNL, GUREGON MULUND LINK, MUMBAI-62 (**)ADDL.RESPONDENTS 14 TO 16 (LRS OF 1ST RESPONDENT)
Operative part
SHEENA, HUSBAND OF DECEASED SHANTHA, “SWARNADEEPA', NEAR SEETHARAMA BAJANA MANDIR, KUNJATHUR VILAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK, (VIA) MANJESHWAR. ASHWIN, S/O.DECEASED SHANTHA, “SWARNADEEPA', NEAR SEETHARAMA BAJANA MANDIR, KUNJATHUR VILAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK, (VIA) MANJESHWAR. AVINASH, S/O.DECEASED SHANTHA, “SWARNADEEPA', NEAR SEETHARAMA BAJANA MANDIR, KUNJATHUR VILAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK, (VIA) MANJESHWAR. (*)ADDL.R8 TO 13 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED R7 AS PER ORDER DATED 12/9/13 IN IA 653/12 RSA NO.900/2011 3 (**)THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.1 ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 14 TO 16 AS PER ORDER DATED 25/6/14 IN IA 3399/13. R3,R5,R6 BY ADV. SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD R3,R5,R6 BY ADV. SMT.O.K.SANTHA R3,R5,R6 BY ADV. SMT.S.SANTHY THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.HARIPRASAD, J. -------------------------------------- R.S.A. No.900 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2015 JUDGMENT No representation for the appellants. The matter comes up in the defect list. Defect is not cured. Hence the appeal is dismissed for default. A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence the appeal is dismissed for
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 30 Nov 2007. The bench was A HARIPRASAD.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.