IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 SA.No.805 of 1996 (D) -------------------------- AS.133/1989 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM OS.226/1984 of II ADDL.M.C.,NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT/1st DEFENDANT: ---------------------------------- VEDAMANICKAM APPALOSE, AGED 83, EDATHARAVILAKATHU VEEDU, ARAYOOR DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH SRI.M.RAMASWAMY RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS 1 TO 3 AND DEFENDANTS 2 TO 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. PADMANABHAN NADAR JOSEPH NADAR, AGED ABOUT 75, KAMPARA KARAKKATTU VEEDU, ARAYOOR DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE NEYYATTINKARA TALUK (1ST RESPONDENT/1ST PLAINTIFF) 2. MARYAMMAL GNANAMMAL, AGED ABOUT 65, OF -DO- -DO- (2ND RESPONDENT/2ND PLAINTIFF) 3. GNANAMMAL ROSEMARY, AGED ABOUT 35, OF -DO- -DO- (3RD RESPONDENT/3RD PLAINTIFF) 4. APPALOSE RAJAYYAN, AGED ABOUT 42, EDATHARAVILAKATHU VEEDU, DO DESOM, DO VILLAGE (4TH RESPONDENT/2ND DEFENDANT) 5. APPALOSE KESARY, AGED ABOUT 40, OF -DO- -DO- (5TH RESPONDENT/3RD DEFENDANT) SA.No.805 of 1996 (D) -2- 6. APPALOSE JAVANSON, AGED ABOUT 37, OF -DO- -DO- (6TH RESPONDENT/4TH DEFENDANT) 7. APPALOSE CHRISTOPHER, AGED ABOUT 35, OF -DO- -DO- (7TH RESPONDENT/5TH DEFENDANT) 8. APPALOSE JOHN, AGED ABOUT 33, OF -DO- -DO- (8TH RESPONDENT/6TH DEFENDANT) ADV. SRI.M.RAJASEKHARAN NAYAR SMT.S.LATHIKA DEVI SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SRI.K.HARILAL SRI.BINDU SREEKUMAR THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ S. A. No.805 of 1996 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is no more and that he is not in-receipt of instructions despite registered letters issued to the legal heirs to enable necessary steps being taken to bring on record the LRs. Service also is not complete to the 8th respondent and no steps are taken. In the result, I dismiss this Second Appeal. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-