Selvam v. Pappathi
Case brief
What is this about?
This appeal challenged a remand order directing impleadment of an interested party in a partition suit. The court held it was settled law that interested parties must be made parties in partition suits to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
What did the court decide?
Appeal dismissed. Plaintiffs directed to file application for impleading Palanisamy for disposal within four months.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.07.2017
CORAM : THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
CMA.No.3079 of 2013
and MP.No.1 2013
1.Selvam
2.Shanmugasundaram
3.Somasundaram
4.Kannan .. Appellants/Defendants 2 to 5
Vs.
1.Pappathi
2.Madheswaran
3.Shanmugavalli
4.Rameshwari .. Respondents/Defendants 1&6, Plaintiffs
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal preferred under Order 43
Rule 1(u) of CPC, praying to set aside the judgment and decree
dated 11.03.2013 made in A.S.No.21 of 2011 on the file of the II
Additional District Judge, Salem, remanding the judgment and
decree dated 16.11.2010 made in O.S.No.159/2008 on the file of the
Principal Subordinate Court, Salem.
For Appellants : M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates For Respondents : Mr.V.P.K.Gowtham [for R1] Ms.Zeenath Begum [for R3 & R4]
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the order of remand dated 11.03.2013 passed in A.S.No.21 of 2011 on the file of II Additional District Court, Salem.
- The short facts involved in this case is that the respondents 3 and 4 as plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.159 of 2008, before the Principal Subordinate Court, Salem, for partitioning two items of properties viz., Item No.I into twelve equal shares; and Item No.II into six equal shares and to allot 2/12 share in Item No.I and 2/6 shares in Item No.II to the respondents 3 and 4. The trial Court has partly decreed the suit, in that, as against plaintiff's claim of 2/12 share in the suit properties, it declared 2 upon 24 share in Item No.2 of the property in the Schedule-I comprised in Survey No.466, and 2/12 share in the Schedule-II, comprised in Survey No.528. Challenging the same, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appellants /defendants 2 to 5 have preferred an appeal and the
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order of remand directing impleadment of a interested party was sustainable in a partition suit.
Whether the appeal challenging the remand order had merit under Order 43 CPC.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Selvam
- appellant
Shanmugasundaram
- appellant
Somasundaram
- appellant
Kannan
- respondent
Pappathi
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court