Allowed

R.M.Ravi Chandran v. v.Praba

Madras HC9 Apr 2021CRP/2325/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court revised the Sub Court's order allowing the transposition of the 9th defendant (plaintiff's spouse/POA agent) to second plaintiff. The revision was dismissed, directing the trial to proceed with the plaintiff as plaintiff and the defendant as defendant to prevent confusion over cause of action.

What did the court decide?

Revised order setting aside impleadment of 9th defendant as second plaintiff; suit to proceed with 9th defendant as 9th defendant.

R.M.Ravi Chandran Vs v.Praba — Partition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09.04.2021

¶4

Coram

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

C.R.P. (PD) No. 2325 of 2020
And
C.M.P.No. 14635 of 2020
R.M.Ravi Chandran ... 3 rd Respondent/3 rd Defendant/
Petitioner
- Vs-
1. V. Praba ... Petitioner/Plaintiff/Respondent
2. S.P.Velumani ... Proposed Plaintiff/Respondent
3. A.Shanmugam
4. A. Muthu ... Respondents 1 & 2/Defendants 1 & 2/
Respondents
5. Kannagi
6. S.Vasuki
7. R.S.Kalaiselvi
8. S.Sumathi ... Respondents 4, 6 to 8/Defendants 4, 6 to
8 /Respondents

¶7

¶8

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and final order dated 02.11.2020 made in I.A.No. 2 of 2019 in O.S.No. 38 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruchengode.

¶9

***
For Petitioner : Ms. D.Sathya
For Respondents : Mr. S.Rajmakesh
ORDER
The present Civil Revision Petition had been filed by the third
defendant in O.S.No. 38 of 2009 now pending on the file of the Sub Court,
Tiruchengode, questioning the order in I.A.No. 2 of 2019 dated 02.11.2020.
In a way, filing of I.A.No. 2 of 2019 had been invited by the present
petitioner himself.

¶10

2. The suit in O.S.No. 38 of 2009 had been filed seeking partition

¶11

and separate possession of 1/9^th share in the suit properties. As stated, the suit had been instituted more than a decade ago. The trial has not yet commenced. In the year 2017, the present petitioner, who is the third defendant, filed I.A.No. 649 of 2018 seeking to implead a third party,

¶12

¶13

S.P.Velumani as the 9^th defendant in the. That petition was allowed and the said individual came to be impleaded as the 9^th defendant in the suit. It is for that reason that I stated that the order now under question had been invited by the petitioner himself. Subsequently, I.A.No. 2 of 2019 came to be filed by the plaintiff seeking to transpose the 9^th defendant as the second plaintiff in the suit. It is also to be mentioned that the plaintiff and the 9^th defendant are spouses. It is therefore contended by the learned counsel now appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs in the suit that there is no conflict of interest as between the two parties and therefore, no prejudice would be caused by the said 9^th defendant being permitted to be transposed as the second plaintiff.

¶14

3. The said I.A.No. 2 of 2019 was allowed by the learned Sub

¶15

Judge, Tiruchengode by order dated 02.11.2020. This order has been very vehemently challenged by the revision petitioner herein by stating the facts of the case at length. Quite honestly, it will be entirely improper on my part to render a finding with respect to any one of the facts which go to the root of the case. They have to be independently established during trial.

¶16

¶17

4. The simple issue is whether any prejudice will be caused to anyone of the parties by the 9^th defendant being transposed as the second plaintiff or whether the plaintiff would get any additional advantage by such transposition of the 9^th defendant or whether the present petitioner / third

¶18

defendant would suffer any disadvantage if such an order is permitted.

¶19

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that

¶20

the third defendant would be seriously prejudiced by the 9^th defendant being transposed as the second plaintiff. The learned Judge in the course of the order necessarily had to examine the basic facts. Finally it had been stated that there would be no change in the nature of the suit and no fresh cause of action would arise if the 9^th defendant is transposed as the second plaintiff, since the suit had been filed for partition based on the power of attorney in the name of the 9^th defendant and a sale deed executed by the 9^th

¶21

defendant. The application was therefore allowed.

¶22

6. Having heard the learned counsels, I would rather that the suit

¶23

proceeds as framed in the year 2009. It is a fact that the original plaintiff and the 9^th defendant are spouses. It is also a fact that it is claimed that the

¶24

¶25

9^th defendant is a power of attorney agent of the plaintiff. But the 9^th defendant independently has no cause as against the other defendants. It is for the plaintiff to establish her right to claim 1/9^th share in the suit property and seek partition and separate possession to that extent.

¶26

7. The petitioner herein had as stated impleaded the 9^th defendant as a necessary party to the suit. The 9^th defendant may tender evidence and his evidence may be supportive of the evidence already tendered by the plaintiff but it would also be better that he does not join as a plaintiff and remains as a 9^th defendant. Since trial has not commenced and the 9^th defendant has also not filed written statement, it would only be appropriate that the parties are invited to complete the pleadings and commence adducing evidence in the suit. The 9^th defendant may take an independent stand. The plaintiff may take an independent stand. Let both of them stated

¶27

their respective stands in the witness box and let that be tested during cross examination.

¶28

8. The reason of the learned Judge that there is no shift in the

¶29

cause of action and that the parties would not be put to any grievance may

¶30

not be entirely correct since the crucial aspect to be considered is whether

¶31

the 9^th defendant, if transposed as plaintiff has any cause against the

¶32

¶33

defendants in the suit. It has to be examined whether the 9^th defendant can claim any relief against the defendants. Strictly, he cannot and does not. He may be the power of attorney and the husband of the plaintiff. Still, it is for the plaintiff to establish her case for partition and for separate possession.

¶34

Therefore, the order under revision requires to be interfered with.

¶35

9. I am informed that the matter is posted for filing written statement of the 9^th defendant. The learned Judge may stipulate a fixed time limit within which, the written statement is to be filed and thereafter frame issues and invite the parties to adduce evidence. Let the parties to the suit be granted opportunity to adduce evidence with respect to the facts to their knowledge and let the learned Judge decide the issues framed in accordance with the evidence advanced.

¶36

10 . With these observations, this Civil Revision Petition is

¶37

allowed. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶38

09.04.2021

¶39

vsg

¶40

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No.

¶41

Speaking / Non speaking

¶42

¶43

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶44

vsg

¶45

C.R.P. (PD) No. 2325 of 2020
And
C.M.P.No. 14635 of 2020
09.04.2021

R.M.Ravi Chandran v. v.Praba

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.M.Ravi Chandran v. v.Praba

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

Velkumar Vs v.v.Subbaiah

S.Subramanian Vs K.Haridoss

D.Dany Heston Vs S.Murugan

G.Vinayagamurugan Vs Sudhagaran

P.Dhandapani Vs G.Amutha

K.Navin Vs Kali (Since Died)