Allowed

Ponnuthai, v. K.Rajeshkumar

Madras HC6 Jan 2015CRP(MD)/1599/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed two civil revision petitions. It held that the petitioner, a co-sharer, must be impleaded in the main partition suit. Two sibling suits regarding the same property were ordered to be consolidated and tried together by the District Judge, Karur, to prevent conflicting decrees.

What did the court decide?

Impleadment of the petitioner in I.A.No.318 of 2012; Transfer of O.S.No.27 of 2013 to be tried along with O.S.No.49 of 2012; Closure of connected miscellaneous petition.

Ponnuthai, Vs K.Rajeshkumar — Partition | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 6/1/2015 C O R A M

¶3

THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

¶4

C.R.P.PD (MD) Nos.1599 and 1600 of 2013

¶5

Ponnuthai ... Petitioner in both the petitions

¶6

¶7

K. Rajesh Kumar

¶8

K. Manivannan

¶9

K. Amudhan

¶10

Suganthi

¶11

Prayer in C.R.P.PD (MD) No.1599 of 2013: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 30/7/2013 in I.A.Nos.122 of 2013 in O.S.No.49 of 2012 on the file of the District Court, Karur.

¶12

Prayer in C.R.P.PD (MD) No.1600 of 2013: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 30/7/2013 in I.A.No.123 of 2013 in I.A.No.318 of 2012 in O.S.No.49 of 2012 on the file of the District Court, Karur.

¶13

For petitioner ... Mr.K.Govindarajan For respondents ... Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram for Mr.D.Nallathambi for R.1. Mr.R.Murali for R.2. Mr.S.Ravi for R.3. Mr.G.Sridharan for R.R.4 and 5. - - - - - C O M M O N O R D E R

¶14

Both the Civil Revision Petitions were challenged by a third party in Interlocutory Applications, who is sought to be impleaded in the suit as well as in the interlocutory proceedings. The said applications were dismissed by the trial Court. Against which the present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed.

¶15

The plaintiff and the respondents are closely related. The revision petitioner is the paternal aunt of the plaintiff and the defendants. O.S.No.49 of 2012 has been filed for partition by the brother of the defendants 1 and 2 on the file of the District Judge, Karur. In https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O.S.No.49 of 2012, the revision petitioner is not made as a party. Therefore, she had filed O.S.No.27 of 2013 on the file of the District

¶16

¶17

Munsif Court, Nilakottai for partition of only one of the items mentioned in O.S.No.49 of 2012. Therefore, the impleading applications were filed by the petitioner to implead her in the suit and the injunction application.

¶18

The said applications were opposed by the respondents contending that the petitioner was given in marriage even 50 years before and she is living in Batlagundu. It is only at the instance of the defendants, who had instigated the petitioner, filed the suit before the District Munsif Court, Nilakottai. According to the respondents, the petitioner is not a necessary party.

¶19

After considering both the sides, the trial Court had dismissed the applications directing the petitioner to file Transfer O.P to transfer the suit in O.S.No.27 of 2013 pending on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Nilakottai or to take steps to transfer the suit to the District Court, Dindigul and further added that if the petitioner is impleaded as a party to the proceedings, there would be a conflicting judgment and decree.

¶20

I am afraid that the reasoning of the learned trial Judge is not correct. Admittedly, in the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.27 of 2013, the plaintiff and the first defendant were parties. Therefore, for proper adjudication, the petitioner should be impleaded as a party to the present suit also. By impleading her, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, as the petitioner is one of the co-sharer of 'A' schedule property.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents though raised objections, later agreed that she should be impleaded as a party.

¶22

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner Ponnuthai has to be impleaded as a party in I.A.No.318 of 2012 in O.S.No.49 of 2012.

¶23

In the result, these Civil Revisions are allowed. No costs. It is submitted that the suit property in O.S.No.27 of 2013 is also a suit property in O.S.No.49 of 2012. It is consented by both the counsels that the suit in O.S.No.27 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nilakottai may be withdrawn and transferred to be tried along with O.S.No.49 of 2012 on the file of the District Court, Karur. Accordingly, it is directed that O.S.No.27 of 2013 is transferred and to be tried along with O.S.No.49 of 2012 on the file of the learned District Judge, Karur. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶26

\True copy\

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

The District Judge, Karur.

¶30

The District Munsif, Nilakottai

¶31

+1 CC TO M/S.D.NALLATHAMBI, ADVOCATE SR.NO.365 +1 CC TO M/S. K.GOVINDARAJU, ADVOCATE SR.NO.340

¶32

C.R.P.PD (MD) Nos.1599 and 1600 of 2013 6/1/2015

¶33

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

¶34

MVS

¶35

NA/09/02/2015/P2/5C

Ponnuthai, v. K.Rajeshkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ponnuthai, v. K.Rajeshkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alagarsamy @ Kumar Vs Vijaya

Muthiah, Vs Chitra

Ramasamy @ Anantharaman, Vs Padmavathi

Vasantha Vs Selvi

Ellammal, Vs Lakshmiammal

V.Meenakshisundaram, Vs S.Mahendran