Dismissed

Janakaraj v. R. Kondasamy Naidu(Died)

Madras HC29 Jul 2021CRP/161/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed two civil revision petitions challenging orders that dismissed pleas to implead proposed 6th and 7th respondents in suits for division of land acquisition award amounts. The Court held these respondents were unnecessary parties.

What did the court decide?

Disallowed petitions for impleadment of non-heir proposed respondents in suits regarding land acquisition award division.

Janakaraj Vs R. Kondasamy Naidu(Died) — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.R.P.(P.D).Nos.161 & 203 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 29.07.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

C.R.P.(PD) Nos. 161 & 203 of 2018 and CMP Nos. 936 & 1161 of 2018

¶7

CRP (PD) No.161 of 2018
K. Janakaraj .... Petitioner
Vs
R.Kondasamy Naidu
1. K.Selvaraj
2. K.Jayabal
3. K.Jayaraman
4. Santhamani
5. P.Santhamani
6. K.Jayaprakash .... Respondents
CRP (PD) No.203 of 2018
K.Selvaraj .... Petitioner
Vs
R.Kondasamy Naidu
1. K. Janakaraj
2. K.Jayabal
3. K.Jayaraman
4. Santhamani
5. P.Santhamani
6. K.Jayaprakash .... Respondents

¶8

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

¶9

1/8

¶10

C.R.P.(P.D).Nos.161 & 203 of 2018

¶11

Prayer in CRP (PD) No.161 of 2018 :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 03.11.2017 made in I.A.No.853 of 2016 in O.S.No.71 of 2014 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore.

¶12

Prayer in CRP (PD) No.203 of 2018 :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 03.11.2017 made in I.A.No.176 of 2017 in O.S.No.61 of 2012 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore.

¶13

In CRP (PD) No.161 of 2018 For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ashwin Kumar for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates For R1, R2, R5 & R6 : No appearance For R3 : Mr.P.Ravi Shankar Rao For R4 : Mr.L.Mouli

¶14

In CRP (PD) No.203 of 2018

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Ravichandran For R1, R2, R4 to R6 : No appearance For R3 : Mr.P.Ravi Shankar Rao

¶16

COMMON ORDER

¶17

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the fair and

¶18

decreetal order dated 03.11.2017 made in I.A.No.853 of 2016 in O.S.No.71 of 2014 and I.A.No.176 of 2017 in O.S.No.61 of 2012 on the

¶19

file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Court,

¶20

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

¶21

2/8

¶22

C.R.P.(P.D).Nos.161 & 203 of 2018

¶23

Coimbatore, thereby dismissing the petitions to implead the 6^th and 7^th

¶24

respondents as party to the suit.

¶25

The petitioner in CRP (PD) No.161 of 2018 filed a suit in

¶26

O.S.No.71 of 2014 for the following prayers :-

¶27

“a. to declare that the declaration deed dated 30.01.1996 executed by the defendant as true, valid and binding on the defendant and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining him from withdrawing his share of the amount awarded in LAOP No.120 of 1999 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore.

¶28

b. for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from withdrawing the plaintiff 1/5^th share of award amount in LAOP No.120 of 1999.

¶29

c. directing the defendant to pay the costs of the suit ; and

¶30

d. granting such further and other reliefs as the Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶31

The case of the petitioner is that the ancestral property,

¶32

belonged to the father, was acquired by the Government and the compensation of the amount was deposited into the credit of LAOP

¶33

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

¶34

3/8

¶35

C.R.P.(P.D).Nos.161 & 203 of 2018

¶36

No.120 of 1999. His father had executed a declaration deed dated 30.01.1996 confirming ½ share of the amount as the petitioner's share in the award amount. Besides that, the petitioner is entitled to have 1/5^th share in the award amount. Thereafter, his father joined with the hands of other sons viz., 3^rd and 4^th respondents and withdraw the amount, which was deposited in the LAOP No.120 of 1999 and deposited a separate account along with the 4^th respondent. Out of the amount deposited by his father transferred a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- in favour of the 4^th respondent and a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- in favour of the proposed 6^th respondent herein. Simultaneously, his father also transferred a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- in favour of the proposed 7^th respondent herein. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition to implead the 6^th and 7^th respondents as party to the suit.

¶37

Admittedly, the 6^th and 7^th respondents are not family members of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the declaration deed dated 30.01.1996 has to be declared as true and valid one. If it is declared then the award amount, which was already withdrawn by his father, in which, he is entitled to have ½ share and 1/5^th share from the remaining amount. Since his father died, pending the suit.

¶38

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

¶39

4/8

¶40

C.R.P.(P.D).Nos.161 & 203 of 2018

¶41

That apart, the proposed 6^th and 7^th respondents are not the legal heirs of his father. There might be so many factors to transfer the said amount by his father to proposed parties. If at all the petitioner ought to recover the said amount, he has to initiate separate proceedings for recovery of money as against the proposed parties. In the present suit, they are absolutely unnecessary parties and the Court below rightly

¶42

dismissed the petition to implead themselves as parties to the suit.

¶43

No.161 of 2018 stands dismissed. Consequently, connected

¶44

Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No order as to costs.

¶45

The petitioner in CRP (PD) No.203 of 2018 filed a suit in

¶46

O.S.No.61 of 2012 for the following prayers :-

¶47

“a. for the division of the amount of Rs.1,47,09,945/- into five equal shares and allotment of Rs.29,41,989/- being 1/5^th share to the plaintiff ;

¶48

b. for permanent injunction restraining the 1^st defendant from withdrawing Rs.29,41,989/- in LAOP No.120 of 1999 being the plaintiff's share amount

¶49

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

¶50

5/8

¶51

C.R.P.(P.D).Nos.161 & 203 of 2018

¶52

c. directing the defendant to pay the costs of the suit ; and

¶53

d. granting such further and other reliefs as the Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶54

The case of the petitioner is that the property, belonged to their

¶55

family, was acquired by the Government and the compensation amount was deposited to the credit of LAOP No.120 of 1999. The petitioner and all the family members are co-parcener and as such, he is entitled to have 1/5^th share in the award amount. Thereafter, his father joined with the hands of other sons viz., 3^rd and 4^th respondents and withdraw the amount, which was deposited in the LAOP No.120 of 1999 and deposited a separate account along with the 4^th respondent. Out of the said amount, he transferred some amount in favour of the proposed respondents i.e., 6^th and 7^th respondent, as stated in the earlier order, the proposed respondent

¶56

is not a legal heir of his father and absolutely there are unnecessary to the present suit. If at all there is any grievance against the respondents 6 and 7 in respect of recovery of money, the petitioner ought to have filed a separate suit for recovery of money. Therefore, the Court below rightly dismissed the petition.

¶57

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

¶58

6/8

¶59

C.R.P.(P.D).Nos.161 & 203 of 2018

¶60

In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below. Accordingly, the CRP (PD) No.203 of 2018 stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No order as to costs.

¶61

29.07.2021
Lpp
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
To
1.The III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.

¶62

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J,

¶63

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

¶64

7/8

¶65

C.R.P.(P.D).Nos.161 & 203 of 2018

¶66

Lpp

¶67

C.R.P.(PD) Nos. 161 & 203 of 2018
and CMP Nos. 936 & 1161 of 2018

¶68

29.07.2021

¶69

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

¶70

8/8

Janakaraj v. R. Kondasamy Naidu(Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janakaraj v. R. Kondasamy Naidu(Died)

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

A.Mohamed Yusuff Siraj Vs N.Perumal

Tamilnadu Industrial Vs M/S. Omega Cables Ltd.

A. Manoharan @ Doss (Deceased) Vs Aalan

A.Mustaq Ahmed Vs S.Mani Mudaliar

S.Shanthi Vs Jeyapal

Adyar Baithulmal, Vs S. Mohammed Kamil