RANGAMMA SOUNDAPPA CHETTY vs PALANISWAMY OBULI CHETTY

Judgment text excerpt

rsk 1 918-AO-360-19.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 360 OF 2019 Rangamma Soundappa Chetty Occupation:Housewife, Hindu, Indian Inhabitant of Bombay, Residing at premises No.3, Parawatibai Chawl, Hingwala Plot, Nityanand Nagar, Ghatkopar (W), ….Appellant Mumbai-400 086 (Original Defendant) Versus Palaniswamy Obuli Chetty Occupation: Service, Hindu, Indian Inhabitant of Bombay, Residing at premises No.1, Parawatibai Chawl, Hingwala Plot, Nityanand Nagar, …Respondent Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400 086 (Original Plaintiff) __________________________________________________________________ Mr. Ramprakash Pandey a/w. Mr. Udaybhan Tiwari, for the Appellant. Mr. Arvind Taral, for the Respondent. __________________________________________________________________ CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J. DATED : 19th DECEMBER 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is filed against the order of the Trial Court whereby the Court has refused to take written statement of the original defendant on the ground of delay. 2. On the earlier occasion, the Court directed the siblings to appear Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAJESHWARI SUBODH before this Court so that they can give undertaking not to use abusive SUBODH KARVE KARVE Date: 2025.12.20 12:27:15 +0530 language against each other, which is the subject matter of the defamation suit but the siblings can litigate with respect to other suits relating to their rsk 2 918-AO-360-19.doc claim on the properties. However, the plaintiff-brother refused this proposal and insisted that he would pursue the defamation suit. Therefore, this Court has no option but to proceed with the adjudication of the present appeal. 3. The facts of the present proceedings reminds this Court about two festivals of our count