Dismissed

Venkatesalu v. Kondaiah

Madras HC14 Feb 2019CRP/2350/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a civil revision petition directed against the dismissal of an application for impleading the petitioner as a third defendant in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The court held there was no merit in the revision. The Court found the petitioner's attempt to join the suits filed by his mother was a ploy to delay proceedings. The Civil Revisio

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition C.R.P.(PD).No.2350 of 2014 is dismissed. The connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.16837 of 2016 is closed. No costs.

Venkatesalu Vs Kondaiah — Partition | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14.02.2019

¶4

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

C.R.P.(PD).No.2350 of 2014
and
C.M.P.No.16837 of 2016
Venkatesalu ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Kondaiah
2.Krishnaiah
3.K.K.Babu
4.K.Narayudu ... Respondents

¶6

PRAYER: Civil Revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 07.02.2014 passed in I.A.No.1094 of 2014 in O.S.No.118 of 2010 on the file of District Munsif Court at Tiruttani.

¶7

For Petitioner : M/s.S.A.Udayakumari For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Raghavalu O R D E R

¶8

The 1^st and 2^nd respondent herein had filed O.S.No.118 of 2010 before

¶9

the District Munsif Court, Tiruttani and prayed for declaration of title and for a permanent injunction to restrain the 3^rd and 4^th respondents herein from

¶10

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶11

¶12

interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the following suit property:-

¶13

“Thiruvallur District, Tiruttani Taluk, Beerakuppam Village, K.G.Kandigai Firka, 1.In Survey No.110/30, extent 0.12 cents. 2.In Survey No.110/16, extent 0.65 cents . 3.In Survey No.110/14, halfa share. Out of 0.19 cents, including 5 H.P.Motor and Electric service connection.”

¶14

In the said suit, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.1094 of 2014 to

¶15

implead himself as the third defendant.

¶16

The said application was resisted by the 1^st and 2^nd respondent herein

¶17

on the ground that the petitioner's mother had already filed O.S.No.196 of 2010 for declaration of title and for a permanent injunction in respect of the following property as hereunder:-

¶18

Thiruvallur District, R.K.Pet, Sub District, Tiruttani

¶19

Taluk Sub District, Cherukkanoor Firka, K.G.Kandigai Village Accounts in Dry Survey No.110/20

¶20

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶21

¶22

“To the East of Krishnama Naidu and Ethirajulu Naidu's Land”

¶23

“To the West of 1^st Defendant's Land:

¶24

“To the South of well in S.No.110/7:

¶25

“To the North of the Plaintiff's Land “

¶26

and within these boundaries 0.24 cents out of 1.17 cents. The Source of irregation is 1/4^th share in the well

¶27

in S.No.110/17.

¶28

The said application was dismissed by the District Munsif Court, Tiruttani vide the impugned order. The petitioner claimed title over 0.24 cents

¶29

out of 1.17 cents in the Item No.2 of the O.S.No.118 of 2013.

¶30

In O.S.No.1969 of 2010 also the petitioner had sought to implead

¶31

himself as the second plaintiff, which came to be dismissed by a separate order dated 03.03.2014 in I.A.No.1093 of 2010 in O.S.No.196 of 2010.

¶32

Against the order in I.A.No.1093 of 2010, the petitioner had filed

¶33

C.R.P.No.2419 of 2014. The said C.R.P was withdrawn by the petitioner.

¶34

Thereafter, a fresh suit has been filed vide O.S.No.1 of 2018 by the

¶35

petitioner herein before District Munsif Court, Tiruttani, wherein relief has

¶36

been sought against the respondents 1, 3 , 4 and the legal heirs of the 2^nd

¶37

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶38

¶39

respondent as the 2^nd respondent P.Krishnaiah has since deceased. The above suit has been filed for a declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the following property as hereunder:-

¶40

“Thiruvallur District, R.K.Pet, Sub-District, Tiruttani
Taluk, Sub-District, Cherukkanoor Firka,
K.G.Kandigai Village, Accounts in Dry Survey
No.110/20.
“To the East of Krishnama Naidu and Ethirajulu
Nadidu's Land”
“To the West of 1 st defendant's Land”
“To the South of well in S.No.110/17”
“To the North of the Plaintiff's Land”
and within these boundaries 0.24 cents out of
1.17cents.
The source of irrigation is 1/4 th share in the well in
S.No.110/17.”

¶41

Thus, it is clear that the petitioner's mother has claimed rights over the properties to the extent of 0.24 cents out of 1.17 cents in O.S.No.196 of 2010 in respect of the property mentioned therein. Petitioner is claiming right over the same property in O.S.No.1 of 2010. The 1^st and 2^nd respondents on the other hand are claiming right over a totally different property though in the same location.

¶42

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶43

¶44

There is no commonality between the properties that are subject to the matter of O.S.No.118 of 2010 filed by the 1st and 2^nd respondents herein and the suit filed by the petitioner's mother vide O.S.No.196 of 2010 before the District Munsif Court and the suit filed by the petitioner vide O.S.No.1 of

¶45

2018 before the Sub Court, Tiruttani.

¶46

It is clear that the applicants attempt to implead himself as 2^nd plaintiff in O.S.No.196 of 2010 and implead himself as 3^rd defendant in O.S.No.118 of 2010 was nothing but a ploy to delay the proceeding.

¶47

There is no merit on the Civil Revision Petition filed by the petitioner. Consequently, I find no merits in the Civil Revision Petition.

¶48

Therefore, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶49

Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No jen

¶50

http://www.judis.nic.in

C.SARAVANAN,J.

Jen/kkd

To
1.The District Munsif Court,
Tiruttani.
2.The Sub Court,
Tiruttani
C.R.P.(PD).No.2350 of 2014
and
C.M.P.No.16837 of 2014
14.02.2019

¶55

http://www.judis.nic.in

Venkatesalu v. Kondaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkatesalu v. Kondaiah

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

Mrs.J.Sarala Vs Mrs.B.v.Loganayaki

Elumalai Vs Vediayappan

Elumalai Vs Vediayappan

Arokiya Famila Vs G.Johnson

Dr.P.Sundarraj Vs a.S.Pandurangan Chettiar

E.Subramanian Vs Desathi Balija Kula Kavarai