Dismissed

Jaya @Pazhaniyammal v. Shanmugavel

Madras HC10 Jan 2019CRP/1967/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner sought to set aside a decree rejecting her application to file a reply statement containing pleas inconsistent with prior pleadings regarding property title. Applying Order 6 Rule 7 of the CPC, the Court held such inconsistent pleas were impermissible.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition No.1967 of 2017 dismissed; no costs awarded.

Jaya @Pazhaniyammal Vs Shanmugavel — Property and Title | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.01.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

C.R.P. (PD).NO.1967 OF 2017

¶7

Jaya @ Pazhaniyammal ...Petitioner

¶8

Vs.
1.Shunmugavel
Valliammal (died)
2.Kalaivani ...Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decree passed in
I.A.No.137 of 2016 in O.S.No.215 of 2010 dated 19.09.2016 on the
file of the I Addl. Subordinate Judge, Villupuram.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Krishnasamy For Respondents : Mr.N.Manokaran for R1 & R2.

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The prayer sought for in the present civil revision petition is to set aside the order and decree dated 19.09.2016 passed in I.A.No.137 of 2016 in O.S.No.215 of 2010 filed under Order 8 Rule 9 of C.P.C. on the file of the I Addl. Subordinate Judge, Villupuram.

¶12

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶13

¶14

Under Order 6 Rule 7 of CPC, no pleading shall,except by

¶15

way of amendment, raise any new ground of claim or contain any allegation of fact inconsistent with the previous pleading of the party pleading the same .

¶16

3.In the instant case, the petitioner herein, had earlier taken a stand that the suit properties are separate properties of her father and that she is entitled to half share. By way of Application filed under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC, seeking to permit the petitioner to file a reply statement, the petitioner would intend to bring in pleadings to the effect that the suit properties in Item Nos.1,3,4 and 9 are the absolute properties of her father Veerapa Gounder and item No.9 is the self acquired property of Veerapa Gounder and Item Nos.6,7 and 8 belong to grand father of the plaintiff. These pleas are contrary to the earlier pleas taken by the petitioner herein, and as such, in view of the bar under Order 6 Rule 7 of CPC, such a plea will not be permissible.

¶17

In the light of this legal position, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court in I.A.No.137 of 2016 in O.S.No.215 of 2010 .

¶18

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶19

¶20

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No

¶21

costs.

¶22

10.01.2019
To
I Addl. Subordinate Judge, Villupuram
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
bga/ssb

¶23

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.S.RAMESH, J.

bga/ssb

C.R.P. (PD).NO.1967 OF 2017

¶28

10.01.2019

¶29

http://www.judis.nic.in

Jaya @Pazhaniyammal v. Shanmugavel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaya @Pazhaniyammal v. Shanmugavel

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

Periammini Vs Karumalaiappa Gounder(died)

Thangamuthu Vs Padmavathy

V. Jaganathan Vs C.T. Muthuveerappan

D. Prakash Vs Varadarajan

P. Srirangan Vs K. Elumalai

Lakshmi Vs Deenadhayalan