Allowed

V. Kannathal, v. S. Nachiappan

Madras HC11 Apr 2014CRP(MD)/2258/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a civil revision petition challenging an order recognizing a power of attorney. Finding the son (principal) was abroad and crucial supporting email evidence was missing, the court set aside the recognition order and remitted the matter to the Family Court.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 11.01.2013 set aside; I.A. No.11 of 2013 remitted to the Family Court to pass appropriate orders afresh.

V. Kannathal, Vs S. Nachiappan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 11.4.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN

¶6

CRP(PD)(MD)No.2258 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2013

¶7

V.Kannathal :Petitioner/1st respondent/ 1st respondent Vs.

¶8

1.S.Nachiappan :1st respondent/Petitioner/Petitioner 2.N.Vairavan :2nd respondent/2nd respondent/2nd respondent

¶9

Prayer : Civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order, dated 11.01.2013 and made in I.A.No.11 of 2013 in GWOP No.2 of 2013 on the file of the Family Court, [now renumbered as GWOP No.32 of 2013 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Madurai.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govindarajan

¶11

For 1st respondent : Mr.Gopala Krishna Lakshmana Raju

¶12

Senior counsel for Mr.R.Venkateswaran

¶13

For 2nd respondent : Mrs.Thilaga Balasubramanian

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The order, dated 11.01.2013 and made in I.A.No.11 of 2013 in GWOP No.2 of 2013 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai has been assailed in this civil revision.

¶16

2.The revision petitioner herein is the first respondent in the petition GWOP No.2 of 2013, whereas the first respondent herein is the petitioner therein and the 2nd respondent is also the 2nd respondent in the above said petition.

¶17

3.It appears that the first respondent has filed the above said GWOP No.2 of 2013 on the file of the learned Family Court, Madurai under sections 6 and 13 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and Sections 7, 10, 12, 17 and 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, to appoint him as guardian of the minor children Roopa and Kishore, aged about 6 years and 2-1/2 years respectively.

¶18

4.Along with this petition, the first petitioner has also filed an application in I.A.No.11 of 2013 under Order 3 Rule 2 and section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to permit and recognise the power of attorney executed by his son Vijayakumar Nachiappan, which was registered at Karaikudi on 21.05.2007, appointing him as his power agent. That application was allowed on 11.01.2013. The said order was challenged by the first respondent, who is the first respondent in the main petition.

¶19

5.Heard Mr.K.Govindarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Gopalakrishna Lakshmana Raju, learned Senior counsel appearing for Mr.R.Venkateswaran for the first respondent and Mrs.Thilaga https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the second respondent.

¶20

¶21

6.As it is manifested from the records that the first respondent's son Vijayakumar Nachiappan has been residing at Canada. The above said power of attorney, dated 21.05.2007 seems to have registered at Karaikudi. It has not been stated as to when the first respondent's son Mr.Vijayakumar Nachiappan came down to India specifically to Karaikudi for the purpose of executing the power of attorney in favour of his father viz., the first respondent herein. Secondly, the principal Vijayakumar Nachiappan is reported to have sent his Email ID requesting his father that is the first respondent herein to take appropriate action on his behalf for the custody of his minor children Roopa and Kishore, but this Email ID in support of the claim of the first respondent has also not been produced along with the petition in I.A.No.11 of 2013.

¶22

7.On account of this two reasons, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and therefore, the revision petition deserves to be allowed.

¶23

8.Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 11.01.2013 is set aside and the petition in I.A.No.11 of 2013 is remitted back to the learned Family Court, Madurai, to pass appropriate orders afresh, after getting the above details. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(T&P)

¶26

/True copy/

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

1.The Family Court, Madurai.

¶30

2.The IV Additional District Judge, Madurai.

¶31

CRP.(PD)(MD)No.2258 of 2013 and MP(MD)No2/2013 Date :11.04.2014

¶32

¶33

pbk 12/03/2015 ::2p-3c:

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

V. Kannathal, v. S. Nachiappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Kannathal, v. S. Nachiappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. Savarimuthu Vs Sudarali

H.a.Mohamed Ali, Vs S.Selvaraj

Jeinulabudeen, Vs Sheik Abdul Rahman

S.Sankara Subramanian, Vs Iyappan

V.Chandrasekar Vs the Commissioner

Umamaheswari, Vs R.Kausalya Devi,W/O.Raveendran