Dismissed

Dhanam v. M.Indhumathi

Madras HC16 Dec 2020CRP/2196/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition. The petitioner sought to be impleaded in partition suit final decree proceedings. She claimed the properties belonged to her father, not her brother, who was the subject of the original suit. The Court held that since her claim rested on a different legal title, she could not be impleaded and must file a separate suit.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition closed. No costs.

Dhanam Vs M.Indhumathi — Partition | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

C.R.P(NPD)No. 2196 of 2018 and C.M.P.No. 13846 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16.12.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

C.R.P(NPD)No. 2196 of 2018
and
C.M.P.No. 13846 of 2018
Dhanam ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.M.Indhumathi
2.Minor Bargavan @ Muthuramakrishnan
3.M.Sivaramakrishnan
4.M.Harikrishnan
5.Muthammal
6.The Sub-Registrar,
Pappireddipatti Taluk & Post,
Dharmapuri District. ...Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, against the decree and fair order dated 27.03.2018 passed in I.A.No.
603 of 2017 in I.A.No. 101 of 2013 in O.S.No. 67 of 2009 on the file of the
Sub-Judge, Harur.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mrs.Elizabeth Ravi For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Gopalan for R1 & R2 Mr.P.Kumanan for R3 to R5 Mr.T.M.Pappiah, Spl.G.P. For R6

¶8

1/6

¶9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶10

C.R.P(NPD)No. 2196 of 2018 and C.M.P.No. 13846 of 2018

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The petitioner, whose application for impleading herself in the

¶13

final decree proceedings in O.S.No. 67 of 2009 in I.A.No. 101 of 2013 was

¶14

dismissed by the Trial Court has come up with this civil revision petition.

¶15

The suit in O.S.No. 67 of 2009 was filed by the plaintiffs

¶16

namely, the wife and son of one Muthumarappan seeking parition and separate possession of their 2/5^th share against the other two sons and mother of Muthumarappan. The suit was decreed after contested on 13.09.2012. A perusal of the judgment shows that the parties claimed that the entire suit properties belonged to Muthumarappan and as a heirs of Muthumarappan the plaintiffs are entitled to 2/5^th share. A preliminary decree was passed on 13.09.2012 granting 2/5^th share to the plaintiffs.

¶17

It is seen that pursuant to the said preliminary decree, the plaintiffs filed an application in I.A.No. 101 of 2013 seeking final decree. A Commissioner was appointed in the said application. It is at this stage, the

¶18

petitioner, who is the sister of Muthumarappan came up with the instant

¶19

2/6

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶21

C.R.P(NPD)No. 2196 of 2018 and C.M.P.No. 13846 of 2018

¶22

application in I.A.No. 603 of 2017 seeking to implead herself in the final decree proceedings contending that the properties belonged to Poochiappa Gounder and as a daughter of Poochiyappa Gounder, she is also entitled to a share in the suit property.

¶23

The learned Trial Judge dismissed the application on the ground that the plaintiffs in the suit have come with the specific case that all the properties belonged to Muthumarappan and Court has adjudicated upon the rights amongst the heirs of Muthumarappan. The plaintiff, admittedly, is not a heir of Muthumarppan, she claimed as heir of father of Muthumarappan, Poochiappa Gounder. Therefore, the Trial Court concluded that since the plaintiff is projecting a claim under a different title, it is for her to launch separate proceedings to establish the title claimed by her.

¶24

I have heard Mrs.Elizabeth Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.A.K.Gopalan, learned counsel for R1 & R2, Mr.P.Kumanan

¶25

for R3 to R5 and Mr.T.M.Pappiah, Special Government Pleader for R6.

¶26

3/6

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶28

C.R.P(NPD)No. 2196 of 2018 and C.M.P.No. 13846 of 2018

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the properties belonged to Poochiappa Gounder and there was no partition between Poochiappa Gounder and Muthumarappan. In the absence of partition between Poochiappa Gounder and Muthumarappan the estate of Poochiappa Gounder will devolve on her also. He would also point out that the grandfather of the minor first plaintiff in O.S.No. 67 of 2009 had filed a subsequent suit representing the minor plaintiff impleading all the heirs of Poochiappa Gounder including the petitioner herein. The

¶30

said suit was however dismissed for default.

¶31

I am unable to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The suit in O.S.No. 67 of 2009, according to the plaintiffs is only with reference the properties of Muthumarappan. The petitioner herein disputes the said statement and claims that the properties subject

¶32

matter of the suit belonged to the father of Muthumarappan namely, Poochiappa Gounder and the petitioner being the daugher of Poochiappa Gounder is entitled to a share in the properties. This, essentially is a new claim in so far as the heirs of Muthumarappan are concerned.

¶33

4/6

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶35

C.R.P(NPD)No. 2196 of 2018 and C.M.P.No. 13846 of 2018

¶36

Therefore, I do not think that the petitioner can be impleaded in

¶37

the present proceedings. It is open to the petitioner to file an appropriae suit
seeking relief of partition of the entire estate of Poochiappa Gounder. If the
petitioner chose to file such suit, the Trial Court will examine the claim of
the petitioner independent of findings rendered in the present suit to which
she is not a party. This civil revision petition therefore fails and it is
accordingly dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed. No costs.
16.12.2020
kkn
Internet:Yes
Index:No
Speaking
To:
The Sub-Court,
Harur.
5/6

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶39

C.R.P(NPD)No. 2196 of 2018 and C.M.P.No. 13846 of 2018

¶40

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

¶41

KKN

¶42

C.R.P(NPD)No. 2196 of 2018
and
C.M.P.No. 13846 of 2018
16.12.2020

¶43

6/6

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Dhanam v. M.Indhumathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanam v. M.Indhumathi

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

V.Chinnammal Vs D.Shyla Shree

N.M. Sivakumar Vs S. Kanagaraj

N. R. Selvaraj Vs S Kumar

N.Suresh Vs S.P.Venkatachalam

Indian Bank Vs K.Latha

S. Thulasinathan Vs B. Anbu