Partly allowed

C.Pasupathi (Died) v. Minor D.Prakul Raja

Madras HC1 Dec 2020CRP/2250/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition partly. It rejected the amendment to add the deceased wife's legal heirs as respondents but allowed the enhancement of the maintenance claim from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for amendment of shares rejected; prayer for enhancing maintenance from Rs.20,000 to Rs.50,000 allowed; order disposed of.

C.Pasupathi (Died) Vs Minor D.Prakul Raja — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

C.R.P.(PD).No.2250 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.15058 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01.12.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

C.R.P.(PD).No.2250 of 2018
and
C.M.P.No.15058 of 2019
C.Pasupathi (Died)
Wife of Late G.R.Chidambarasamy
1. C.Muthukumararaja
2. C.Devasenapathi .. Petitioners
Vs.
1. Minor D.Prakul Raja
2. D.Radha
3. K.Loganayaki
4. K.Parvatham
5. R.Dakshinamoorthy
6. D.Bharathiraja
7. D.Perarasu
8. D.Dhanalakshmi
9. N.Deivasigamani
10. N.Rajamanickam
11. N.Duraisamy
1/5

¶7

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

¶8

C.R.P.(PD).No.2250 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.15058 of 2019

¶9

R.Karuppanasamy

¶10

N.T.Kannusamy

¶11

S.Anandan

¶12

S.Saravanan

¶13

K.Sivanandam

¶14

V.Thangavel

¶15

V.Palanisamy

¶16

C.Loganathan

¶17

P.Akilandam

¶18

K.Mythili

¶19

T.Nalini

¶20

V.Lakshmi

¶21

N.Lakshmi

¶22

N.Sukumar

¶23

V.Ponnusamy

¶24

.. Respondents

¶25

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and Final order dated 07.04.2018 made in I.A.No. 93 of 2018 in O.S.No. 39 of 2016 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Erode by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

¶26

For Petitioners : M/s.Devi

¶27

For Respondents : Mr.Arun Kumar

¶28

2/5

¶29

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

¶30

C.R.P.(PD).No.2250 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.15058 of 2019

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Ms.Devi learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the share of first defendant in the property would devolve only upon her children under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The share of the first defendant will not devolve either the first plaintiff (the grand child) or the second plaintiff (Daughter in law). Therefore, according to her, the death of the first defendant will not result in increase in the share of the plaintiffs. Hence the amendment sought for cannot be granted.

¶33

Mr.Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the Court need not go into the correctness of the plaintiffs' case while considerring the application for amendment. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in allowing the amendment application. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶34

The 1^st defendant is the wife of late G.R. Chidambarasamy. She died pending suit and her share would devolve only under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act and not under Sections 6 or 8. It cannot be contended that the respondents 1 and 2 are the legal heirs of the deceased 1^st defendant. Neither the first plaintiff nor the second plaintiff would get any right over the property of the first defendant so long as the third defendant is alive. Therefore, the learned trial Judge has erred in allowing the application

¶35

3/5

¶36

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

¶37

C.R.P.(PD).No.2250 of 2018 and

¶38

C.M.P.No.15058 of 2019

¶39

for amendment on the ground that the correctness of the pleas sought to be introduced by way of amendment need not be gone into while considering the application under Order VI Rule 17. The stated principle of law would apply only to a factual plea and not a erroneous legal plea. A court should not allow a amendment which is illegal. However the order allowing the other amendment sought for namely to enhance the claim for maintanance cannot be said to be wrong.

¶40

Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed. The prayer for amendment of the shares claimed in the plaint shall stand rejected and only the prayer for enhancing the maintenance from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.50,000/- is allowed. This Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 01.12.2020 kmm Internet: Yes/No Index:Yes/No To The learned II Additional District Judge, Erode.

¶41

4/5

¶42

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

¶43

C.R.P.(PD).No.2250 of 2018

¶44

and C.M.P.No.15058 of 2019

¶45

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

¶46

kmm

¶47

C.R.P.(PD).No.2250 of 2018
and
C.M.P.No.15058 of 2019
01.12.2020

¶48

5/5

¶49

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

C.Pasupathi (Died) v. Minor D.Prakul Raja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Pasupathi (Died) v. Minor D.Prakul Raja

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

K.P.Singaram, Vs C.Natarajan

Kumaravel Vs Poomathi

Yolande Louis (Nee Sinnas ) Vs Celestine Pushparaj

Murugan Vs Jayaraman

Rathinam Vs Subramanian

G.Gajapathy Vs Krishnaveni