IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 SA.No. 580 of 1999(B) ------------------------------- AS.NO.168/1992 OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE, OS.NO. 98/1990 OF SUB COURT, QUILANDY. .................... APPELLANTS/ APPELLANTS/ DEFENDANTS 2, 9 & 10: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CHERIPPARI KUNHAMMAD, S/O. MOIDEEN. 2. CHERIPPARI KUTTIALI, S/O. MOIDEEN. 3. -DO- THARUVAYI, S/O. MOIDEEN. ALL APPELLANTS RESIDE AT KALPATHUR AMSOM AND VALLIAKKODE DESOM OF QUILANDY TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.P.K.SURESH KUMAR, SMT.M.R.SREELATHA, MR.K.P.SUDHEER. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/ PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS 1, 3 TO 8: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KOROTH KRISHNAN NAIR. 2. KOROTH SANKARAN NAIR S/O. KUNKI AMMA (DIED). 3. PARVATHI AMMA, W/O. SANKARAN NAIR. 4. CHILDREN CHANDRASEKHARAN. 5. JANARDHANAN. 6. BHARGAVI. 7. BHAVANI. 8. VIJAYA BHARATHI. 9. INDIRA. S.A. NO. 580/1999-B: 10. GIRIJA. 11. JAYASREE. 12. GEETHA. 13. SUJATHA. 14. KOROTH CHIRUTHEVI AMMA (DIED). 15. MADHAVI AMMA. 16. AMMALU AMMA. 17. NARAYANAN NAIR. 18. LAKSHMI AMMA. 19. THEKKE MAMMILIKULANGARA L.P. MUHAMMED ABDURAHMAN. 20. KOROTH JANAKI AMMA. 21. BALAKRISHNA KURUP. 22. NARAYANAN NAIR (DIED). 23. KOMALAM, W/O. NARAYANAN NAIR. 24. CHILDREN SIJITHA (MINOR). 25. SIJISH (MINOR). 26. SIJINA (MINOR). MINOR RESPONDENTS 24 TO 26 REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER 23RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS ARE RESIDING IN KALPATHUR AMSOM AND VALLIAKKODE DESOM OF QUILANDY TALUK. THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.N.Ravindran, J. ================= S.A. No.580 of 1999 ===================== Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Sri.P.K. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the claim made by the appellants relates to the leasehold right over the shop building situated in item No.4 of the plaint schedule, that after this appeal was filed, the building was demolished, that a final decree for partition was passed and that in execution of the final decree the land where the building was situate was delivered over to the allottee. He submits that in these circumstances, nothing survives for adjudication in this Second Appeal. As the subject matter of the dispute does not now exist, this Second Appeal is dismissed as infructuous. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 5/2