This miscellaneous petition sought to implead legal heirs of Periyathambi as necessary parties in a second appeal concerning a partition suit. The Court held that if an oral partition exists, they are necessary parties and allowed the impleadment.
Proposed petitioners impleaded as respondents 5 and 6 in the Second Appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.M.P.No. 11869 of 2022
C.M.P.No. 11869 of 2022 in S.A. No. 1175 of 2013
in
S.A. No. 1175 of 2013
T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking to implead the petitioners herein as proposed respondents 5 and 6 in the above Second Appeal.
C.M.P.No. 11869 of 2022 in S.A. No. 1175 of 2013
However, the learned counsel for plaintiffs denied the oral partition in
favour of Pachaiammal.
C.M.P.No. 11869 of 2022 in S.A. No. 1175 of 2013
proceedings, this petition is allowed. Accordingly, the proposed petitioners
are impleaded as respondents 5 and 6 in the above Second Appeal.
05.08.2022
rpp
C.M.P.No. 11869 of 2022 in S.A. No. 1175 of 2013
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rpp
C.M.P.No. 11869 of 2022
in S.A. No. 1175 of 2013
05.08.2022
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the proposed petitioners are necessary parties to be impleaded in the second appeal regarding the suit property.
Whether the existence of an alleged oral partition makes the proposed petitioners necessary parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Legal heirs of Periyathambi
Plaintiffs / Defendants
T.V. THAMILSELVI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
