Allowed

R.Guna Sundari v. R.Venkateshwar Rao (Deceased) 1.R.Narayana Rao and 10 others

Madras HC13 Apr 2022A/1681/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought impleadment as legal heirs of a deceased defendant in a partition suit. The Court allowed the application, directing the plaintiff to amend the plaint. The matter was posted for the newly impleaded parties to file a Written Statement.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; impleadment of legal heirs as defendants directed; plaintiff ordered to amend plaint.

R.Guna Sundari Vs R.Venkateshwar Rao (Deceased) 1.R.Narayana Rao… — Partition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

A.No.1681 of 2022 in C.S.No.157 of 2014

¶2

V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.

¶3

Application No.1681 of 2022 has been filed to bring the respondents 9 to 11 herein on record as Legal Heirs of the deceased 2nd defendant viz., R.Venkateshwar Rao, as party defendants 11 to 13 in the above suit C.S.No.157 of 2014.

¶4

2.Heard M.Kempraj, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr.M.Mohanraj, learned counsel for the second respondent, Mr.M.Muralidharan Reddy, learned counsel for the third respondent and Mr.E.Senthilkumar, learned counsel for the respondents 7 to 10.

¶5

3.On perusal of affidavit, it is seen that the applicant husband R.Venkateshwar Rao, the second defendant in the above suit is the brother of the first respondent/plaintiff herein, who expired on 24.08.2021, leaving behind the following persons as his Class-I legal heirs:

¶6

(i)Vishnu Priya Wife (1st applicant) - (ii)V.Ram Son (2nd applicant) - (iii)V.Hariharan Son (3rd applicant)

¶7

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

¶8

1/2

¶9

V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.

¶10

Pam

¶11

The deceased second defendant has 1/6th share in the suit schedule properties. After his death, his share devolves upon his legal heirs, being the proposed respondents herein, as his only Class-I legl heirs. Hence, the proposed respondents 9 to 11 must be necessarily impleaded in the above suit as party defendants 11 to 13 for further adjudication in the above suit for partition.

¶12

Having satisfied with the reasons stated in this affidavit filed in support

¶13

of this application and considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court is inclined to allow the application. Accordingly, this application is allowed.

¶14

5.Learned counsel for the plaintiff is directed to carry out the necessary

¶15

amendment.

¶16

6.For filing Written Statement by the newly impleaded parties, post the matter on 17.06.2022.

¶17

13.04.2022

¶18

pam

¶19

A.No.1681 of 2022 in C.S.No.157 of 2014

¶20

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

¶21

2/2

R.Guna Sundari v. R.Venkateshwar Rao (Deceased) 1.R.Narayana Rao and 10 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Guna Sundari v. R.Venkateshwar Rao (Deceased) 1.R.Narayana Rao and 10 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

S..a.Rajkannu Vs P.Ganesan and Another

M/S.Dr Jrk Siddha Research Vs M/S.Inoda Healthkare P Ltd.

K.P.Ravichandran Vs M/S Sree Amman Creations

B.Nagamani Vs M/S.Indo International Ltd.

Isha Foundation Vs Sathiyam Media Vision Private Limited

Janaki Arunachalam Vs Archana