Dismissed

Nalini v. P.Ramakrishnan

Madras HC25 Oct 2017OSA/151/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed appeals against an order transferring two civil suits concerning partition and ownership of property to the High Court for trial alongside a related suit. The Court upheld the transfer order under Clause 13 and 15 of the Letters Patent.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of O.S.Nos. 699 of 2011 and 1028 of 2012 from Principal District Munsif, Alandur to the High Court to be tried alongside C.S.No. 778 of 2013.

Nalini Vs P.Ramakrishnan — Partition | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 25.10.2017

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.SUNDAR O.S.A.Nos.151 and 152 of 2017 and C.M.P.Nos.10758 and 10760 of 2017

¶5

1.Nalini 2.S.Palpandian .. Appellants in both the appeals Vs

¶6

1.P.Ramakrishnan
2.P.Shanmuganathan
3.P.Rajagopal
4.A.Manoranjitham
5.A.Balasubramanian
6.A.Jawahar
7.P.Prema
8.D.Shalini
9.P.Sujeetha
10.A.Thangalakshmi
11.R.Arunkumar
12.R.Arvind Kumar
13.R.Vasanth Kumar .. Respondents in
both the appeals

¶7

Appeals preferred under Order 36 Rule 2 r/w Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 05.01.2017 in Tr.A.Nos.8260 of 2015 and 8261 of 2015 in C.S.No.778 of 2013. Tr.A.Nos.8260/15 Prayer:

¶8

Application praying that this Hon'ble court be pleased to withdrawn the suit in O.S.No.1028/12 and pending before the court of the principal district munsif at alandur and Transfer the same to the file of the Hon'ble High court of Judicature at Madras to be tried along with C.S.No.778/13

¶9

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

¶10

Tr.A.Nos.8261/15 Prayer:

¶11

Application praying that this Hon'ble court be pleased to grant an order of transfer of O.S.No.699/11 and Pending before the court of the Principal District Munsif at Alandur to the file of the Hon'ble High court of Judicature at Madras to be tried along with C.S.No.778/13

¶12

C.S.No.778/13

¶13

Civil suit filed under OXXIV R1 of O.S. Rules R/W 07 R1 of CPC praying to pass a(a) preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of ¼^th share in iteme No.1&2 of the suit schedule properties and (b) to pass a final decree by appointing an advocate commissioner to divide ¼^th share of the plaintiff on the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds.

¶14

For Appellants .. Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, Sr. Counsel
for M/s.S.Sangeetha
in both the appeals
For Respondents.. Mr.D.Sai Kumaran for R1 and R13
Ms.R.T.Shyamala for R2
Mr.R.N.Amarnath for R3, R11
and R12
in both the appeals
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)

¶15

These two appeals have been preferred against the order of the learned single Judge, by which, two other suits pending on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Alandur in O.S.Nos.699 of 2011 and 1028 of 2012 were directed to be transferred to be tried along with C.S.No.778 of 2013.

¶16

2.Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals would contend that no proper reasons have been assigned by the learned single Judge while ordering the transfer of the suits. Learned senior counsel, in addition to the submissions made, would also submit that the appellants have not been heard while passing the order.

¶17

3.Though it is contended by the learned senior counsel that no notice was issued, taking into consideration the fact that

¶18

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

¶19

the learned single Judge has exercised his discretion available under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent coupled with the fact that we have heard all the parties at length before us the said contention is accordingly rejected.

¶20

4.Learned counsels appearing for the respective respondents would submit that the primary issue involved in all the three suits is one and the same, i.e. with respect to the koorchit signed and executed by the parties concerned, who are 18 in number. While it is the contention of some of the parties that koorchit has not been given effect to, it is the contention of others that it has been given effect to and acted upon.

¶21

5.Clause 13 of the Letters Patent gives discretion to this Court to transfer the suits pending from the subordinate courts. That being so, this Court can exercise its discretion either on agreement of the parties or for rendering justice. On a perusal of the pleadings in all the three suits, we concur with the submission made by the learned counsels for the respondents to the effect that the fundamental and core issue is with respect to the construction of the koorchits. Therefore, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned single Judge. After all, the object is to avoid conflict of decision between the parties. Hence we do not find any error warranting interference.

¶22

6.In such view of the matter, both the appeals stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

¶23

7.Accordingly, the Principal District Munsif, Alandur, is directed to transfer the pending suits in O.S.Nos.699 of 2011 and 1028 of 2012 on its file to the file of this Court. Registry is directed to tag them along with C.S.No.778 of 2013. Needful will have to be done within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

mmi

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

The Sub Assistant Registrar, Original Side, High Court, Madras.

¶30

The Principal District munsif, Alandur.

¶31

+1cc to Mr.K.RAMYA Advocate, S.R.No. 75173 +2cc to Mr.D.Sai Kumaran Advocate, S.R.No. 76108, 76109 +1cc to Mr.R.N.Amarnath Advocate, S.R.No. 75385

¶32

O.S.A.Nos.151 and 152
of 2017
RV (CO)
TR(04/12/2017)

¶33

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

Nalini v. P.Ramakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nalini v. P.Ramakrishnan

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

S.Suresh Vs The chief Secretary

A.Mani Appavu Vs The District Collector

Senthil Murugan Vs The District Revenue Officer

Thirumala Milk Products P Ltd. Vs S.v.Milk & Milk Products P Ltd.

S.v.Milk and Milk Products P Vs Tirumala Milk Products P Ltd.

Befesa Agua, Sau Vs Ivrcl Infrastructure and