Vimalabai vs. Kanteppa (D) By Lrs.& Ors.

Court:Supreme Court of India
Judge:Hon'ble Prashant Kumar Mishra
Case Status:Disposed
Order Date:21 Aug 2024
CNR:SCIN010111332023

AI Summary

Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order

Order Issued After Hearing

Purpose:

Fixed Date by Court

Before:

Hon'ble Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Stage:

FRESHLY / ADJOURNED MATTERS

Remarks:

Disposed off

Listed On:

21 Aug 2024

In:

Chamber

Category:

UNKNOWN

Interlocutory Applications:

54424/2023,83253/2023,94143/2023,

Original Order Copy

Get a certified copy of this order

Download True Copy

Order Text

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION Diary No(s).11133/2023 $\mathbf{I}\mathbf{N}$ CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5340-5342 OF 2012

VIMALABAI

...Petitioner

VERSUS

KANTEPPA (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.

...Respondents

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

$\mathbf{2}$ . It appears that initially the appeal was dismissed for not being supported by petitioner's affidavit, as required, and later on, when time was granted, it was affirmed by learned Advocate-on-Record and the Court had granted time to get the affidavit affirmed by the party concerned. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite their best efforts, nobody could be contacted and thus, the same could not be complied with. However, he frankly admits that for the said purpose, the Court had granted time on a number of occasions earlier.

Learned counsel for the respondents submit that even on 3. merits, the petitioner claims to be the second wife of the deceased and in a suit for partition, shares have been given to all the parties, including the children born to the petitioner, but because of the statutory provisions, the petitioner being the second wife and the marriage having been performed during the lifetime of the first spouse, legally she is not entitled to any share in the property of the deceased-husband.

Having considered the matter in its entirety, the Court feels The common state is a served by keeping the matter pending and thus, the same should be given a quietus.

$\mathbf{1}$

5. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Applications No.83253/2023, 94143/2023 and 54424/2023 stand dismissed.

6. The Miscellaneous Application is disposed of.

........................,J. ( AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH )

NEW DELHI; AUGUST 21, 2024.

ITEM NO.1718 COURT NO.10 SECTION IV-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION Diary No(s).11133/2023

VIMALABAI Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

KANTEPPA (D) BY LRS. AND ORS. Respondent(s)

(IA No. 83253/2023 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION IA No. 94143/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION IA No. 54424/2023 - RESTORATION)

Date : 21-08-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH [IN CHAMBER]

For Petitioner(s) Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR Ms. Nandini B., Adv. Mr. Srilok Nath Rath, Adv. Ms. Reena Rao, Adv. Mr. Sujoy Gaur, Adv. Mr. Sandeep, Adv. Mr. Kashyap Kumar Dwivedi, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Abdul Azeem Kalebudde, Adv. Mr. P.R. Ramasesh, AOR

Mr. H. Chandra Sekhar, AOR

Mr. Anil Kumar, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

1. The Interlocutory Applications No.83253/2023, 94143/2023 and 54424/2023 stands dismissed.

2. The Miscellaneous Application is disposed of in terms of the Signed Order placed on the file.

(VIJAY KUMAR) (SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

3