Give precise detail .

nature of appeal , appeal no.

The SLP will be filed by the other party and the admissibility of the same depends of the grounds on which the SLP will be filed.

the same can not be told just by perusing the order.

kindly share the entire paper boo with an advocate to get a proper and concrete opinion.

Let me know if some further clarification is required or if there is some factual inconsistency in the advise so rendered.

Thanks and Best of Luck

Appeal has been allowed, order of trail court is over ruled,

And documents produced were not considered by the court since, not registered.

And the son of R.L.Rangachar has 1/4 undivided share through WILL

I have perused the same.

To tell whether the SLP will be maintainable or now I will have to peruse the paper book and see what all grounds are available.

Regards

Kindly reproduce operative part of the judgment

2) only if Appellant is able to make out a prima facile case wouldthe appeal be admitted

Well, its very difficult to say on merit of the appeal.

Since it would be second appeal in supreme court the chances of appeal is very bright as preferring an appeal is a right.

Had it been a slp then chances would have been bleak.

Mr Rajaraman

Right to appeal is a fundamental right as well as statutory right and it cannot be denied. If you feel that other side can appeal in supreme court, i would suggest you to file caveat in supreme court so that no order is passed by the supreme court without hearing you.

SHRI GOPAL VERMA

ADVOCATE ON RECORD

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Hi

First and foremost unless and until the matter involves a substantial question of law, high court in general does not grant permission to file an appeal under Article 136 in supreme court.

Also as a matter of rule, the appeal to supreme court has to be made within 90 days from the date of high court order(in your case the order is dated 27 April 2017) which in effect means the an appeal cannot be filed in supreme court past 90 days( barred by limitation).

Secondly the order of the High court is on willingness of 8th or 10th Respondent to be appointed as a guardian and friend of 9th Respondent. The court has considered the factum of health of Ms.Revathy and has said that either 8th or 10th Respondent may be appointed as guardian and friend of 9th Respondent.

This order of high court can never be challenged in supreme court as the matter pertains to health of Revathy and also a possible appointment of Guardians. Also the matter is 2000 matter and it is likely that the supreme court will throw out the appeal in admission stage itself as it will view any appeal so filed as only delaying tactics. So no need to worry.

Hope this information is useful.

If you want to have a opinion about preferring appeal against the judgment and if you are an aggrieved party, you should consult either your own lawyer or discuss with any other senior and expert lawyer in person along with the copy of the judgment and the details of the case and your reliefs or remedies sought.

You can engage the services of an expert lawyer of this forum too for this purpose and the facilities are available in this forum for such services.

FIRST APPEAL NO.32/2000 FILED WITH MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 10/11/2017 AND THE SAME IS UPDATED IN JUDIS.ON 23/11/17

Any opinion got here with brief ideas about the subject issue may not be proper and may also be misguiding especially if you are serious about preferring an appeal before the apex court, hence better discuss the issue in detail with an advocate having experience in the field and take a decision accordingly.

The details what you have given above are just vague in nature.