TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Dismissed Due to Appellant's Death: Understanding Survival of Causes of Action</h1> <h3>Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan Versus Thekittil Gopalankutty Nair</h3> Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan Versus Thekittil Gopalankutty Nair - 1986 AIR 411, 1985 SCR Supl. (3) 805, 1986 SCC (1) 118, 1985 SCALE (2)1098 Issues:1. Abatement of appeal due to the death of the appellant.2. Legal representative's right to continue the appeal in case of the appellant's death.3. Survival of the right to sue for defamation upon the death of the plaintiff.4. Interpretation of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.Detailed Analysis:1. The judgment deals with the abatement of an appeal following the death of the appellant. The appellant passed away during the pendency of the appeal, leaving behind two grandsons and two granddaughters as his legal representatives. The key issue was whether the appeal abated automatically upon the appellant's death, which would impact the consideration of condoning the delay in filing applications for substitution and setting aside the abatement.2. The legal provisions under Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, were examined to determine the rights of legal representatives in continuing the appeal. Rule 1 of Order XXII states that the death of a plaintiff or defendant shall not cause the suit to abate if the right to sue survives. In the case of an appeal, Rule 11 clarifies that the death of an appellant shall not cause the appeal to abate if the right to sue survives. Therefore, if the right to sue for defamation does not survive the appellant's death, the appeal would abate.3. The judgment delves into the survival of the right to sue for defamation upon the death of the plaintiff. It references the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934, and the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which specify that causes of action for defamation do not survive the death of the person suing. The legal analysis concludes that in a defamation action, the right to sue does not survive the plaintiff's death, leading to the abatement of the appeal.4. The interpretation of Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, in conjunction with the relevant rules of the Code of Civil Procedure, was crucial in determining the outcome of the appeal. Section 306 outlines that causes of action for defamation do not survive the death of the plaintiff. This statutory provision, combined with the rules governing appeals, led to the dismissal of the appeal due to abatement following the appellant's demise.In conclusion, the judgment dismissed the appeal as having abated due to the death of the appellant, highlighting the legal principles surrounding the survival of causes of action, specifically in defamation cases, and the rights of legal representatives in continuing legal proceedings post the appellant's death.
TaxTMI 