Dismissed

Mrs.v.S.Radhalakshmi and 2 Others v. M/S.Ambika Appalam Company and 3 Others

Madras HC6 Jan 2020A/7087/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of an application seeking to implead daughters of a partner as defendants in a suit challenging a settlement deed. The Court held the applicants were not proper or necessary parties to the dispute, which involved partners only, and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

Application to implead daughters as defendants was dismissed as they were not proper or necessary parties.

Mrs.v.S.Radhalakshmi and 2 Others Vs M/S.Ambika Appalam Company and… — Partition | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

A.No.7087 of 2019 in C.S. No.656 of 2018

¶7

M/s.Ambika Appalam Company, Represented by its Partner, Mr.K.V.Vijayaraghavan, New No.4, Dr.Nair Road, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017. ... Plaintiff Vs

¶8

1.Mr.K.A.Velayudham, S/o.Karavattu Ayyappan, No.7, Balakrishna Street, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

¶9

2.K.V.Sukumar, S/o K.A.Velayudham, No.7, Balakrishna Street, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

¶10

3.The Sub-Registrar, T.Nagar Registration Office, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015. ... Defendants

¶11

A.No.7087 of 2019:

¶12

1.Mrs.V.S.Radhalakshmi, Age 61/Y W/o.Late.Srinivasan, Vallathuparambil, (P.O), Karuvannur, Irijalakuda Via, Thrissur, Kerala State.

¶13

2.Mrs.K.V.Mallika, Age 59/Y, W/o.Dr.V.K.Viswambharan, Appasamy Towers, B-16, Thyagaraya Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

¶14

3.Mrs.K.V.Ambika, Age 57/Y, W/o.Dr.T.D.Muraleedharan, Thekkethara House, Plot No.155, Hill Gardens, Kuttanellore (P.O), https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Thirssur, Kerala State.

¶15

..Applicants/Proposed Defendants

¶16

¶17

/Vs./

¶18

1.M/s.Ambika Appalam Company, Rep. by its Partner Mr.K.V.Vijayaraghavan, New No.4, Dr.Nair Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. ..1^st Respondent/Plaintiff 2.Mr.K.A.Velayutham, S/o.Karavattu Ayyappan, No.7, Balakrishnan Street, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

¶19

3.Mr.K.V.Sukumar, S/o.K.A.Velayutham, No.7, Balakrishnan Street, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

¶20

4.The Sub-Registrar, T.Nagar Registration Office, Saidapet, Chennai-15. ..Respondents 2 to 4/ Defendants 1 to 3

¶21

Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to implead the Applicants as defendants 4 to 6 in the suit in Tr.C.S.No.656 of 2018.

¶22

Application coming on this day before this Court for hearing, the Court made the following order:

¶23

This application is taken out by the daughters of K.A.Velayutham, who is the 1^st defendant in the suit filed for declaring the settlement deed dated 17.11.2011 as void as against the plaintiff's firm. The said application is opposed by the 2^nd defendant on the ground that the father of the applicant/proposed defendant has executed a settlement deed for the partnership property in his favour and the said partnership firm was dissolved subsequently

¶24

and the property of the partnership has been settled in his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ favour. The said settlement deed is the subject matter of

¶25

¶26

the suit.

¶27

In respect of suit properties, this Court in C.S.No.848 of 2000 has already declared that it is the property of the partnership firm and the said decree has become final. While so, the dispute now is only between the partners of the partnership firm, who are the plaintiff K.V.Vijayaraghavan and the defendants K.A.Velayutham and K.V.Sukumaran. Applicants want to get impleaded on the premise that they are the daughters of K.A.Velayutham. This claim is unsustainable since they are neither proper nor necessary parties to decide the lis. Hence, the application is dismissed.

¶28

06.01.2020

¶29

//Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2020.

¶30

JJ 13/01/2020

¶31

COURT OFFICER(O.S.)

¶32

From 25th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶33

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

Mrs.v.S.Radhalakshmi and 2 Others v. M/S.Ambika Appalam Company and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.v.S.Radhalakshmi and 2 Others v. M/S.Ambika Appalam Company and 3 Others

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

Desert Valley Medical Inc. Vs a.Jayachadra Reddy

Mrs. Rukmani Devi Vs M/s. Future E State Property

Viacom 18 Media Pvt.Ltd. Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

P.Periasamy Vs The Inspector of Police

M/s.Tamil Nadu Teachers Vs M/s.The Inno Estates

V.S.Radha Lakshmi, Vs K.a.Velayutham