The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order allowing the legal heirs of the deceased sole plaintiff to be impleaded as respondents under CPC, stating the trial court was correct in treating them as legal heirs for procedural purposes without deciding adoption validity at this stage.
Revision petition dismissed; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.07.2014
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA
C.R.P(PD).No.2013 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014
1.G.Srinivasan 2.Kalavathiammal 3.N.Usharani 4.G.S.Madhankumar 5.S.Nirmaladevi 6.V.Narmada .. Petitioners
Vs.
G.Boopalan (died) 1.Vijayalakshmi 2.Monisha .. Respondents
Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 17.02.2014 made in I.A.No.40 of 2013 in O.S.No.15 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Vellore at Ranipet, Vellore District.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.P.Prabakaran
2
O R D E R
The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 17.02.2014 made in I.A.No.40 of 2013 in O.S.No.15 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Vellore at Ranipet, Vellore District.
2.At the time of admission, argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is heard in length.
3.The plaintiff namely, Boopalan, who is the husband and father of the respondents 1 and 2 respectively, filed a suit in O.S.No.15 of 2012 for declaration of title and recovery of possession and mesne profits and for other reliefs. During pendency of the suit, the sole plaintiff namely, Boopalan died. So his wife and daughter by name Monisha, who is alleged to be an adoptive daughter of Boopalan filed an application in I.A.No.40 of 2013 under Order 22 Rule 3 of C.P.C. to implead themselves as legal heirs of the deceased Boopalan. The trial Court, after hearing both sides, allowed the application, against which, the present revision is preferred by the revision petitioners/defendants.
3
4.Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the first respondent namely, Vijayalakshmi is a legally wedded wife of Boopalan and hence, the revision petitioners have no objection to implead herself as party to the proceedings. Whereas the second respondent herein namely, Monisha is an adoptive daughter and the trial Court without examining any witnesses and documents, allowed the application in I.A.No.40 of 2013. Hence, the revision petitioners have come forward with this revision only to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.40 of 2013 in respect of the second respondent/second petitioner therein. Therefore, he prayed for allowing of this revision petition.
5.On perusal of typed set of papers, it reveals that the first revision petitioner/first defendant is none other than the brother of the plaintiff/Boopalan. The defendants 2 to 6 are wife and children of the first defendant. It further reveals that the first respondent namely, Vijayalakshmi has herself stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that the second petitioner/second respondent namely, Monisha is their adopted daughter. In my view, whether the said Monisha is the adopted daughter or not to be decided only at the time of trial, since they are claiming title over
4
the suit property as the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff. In such circumstances, I am of the view, the trial Court is correct in holding that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Boopalan. The trial Court in para-9 of its order itself held that though the petitioners have filed the registered adoption deed and legal Heirship Certificate along with the application, the petitioners have not chosen to enter into the witness box and to mark the same as Exibits. Hence, I do not find any merits in the revision and the revision is dismissed as devoid of merits.
6.In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
10.07.2014
kj
To
II Additional District and Sessions Court Vellore at Ranipet, Vellore District.
5
R.MALA,J.
kj
C.R.P(PD).No.2013 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014
10.07.2014
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the adoption of Monisha must be examined in detail to allow her as a legal heir for impleadment purposes under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC.
Whether the trial court erred in allowing the impleadment of the adoptive daughter without examining witnesses and documents under Challenge under Article 226 CPC.
Whether the revision against the order allowing impleadment of legal heirs as parties was maintainable.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
G. Srinivasan
Kalavathiammal
N. Usharani
G. S. Madhankumar
S. Nirmaladevi
V. Narmada
R. Mala
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
