Allowed

Ramasamy v. V.V. Palanisamy

Madras HC2 Nov 2022CRP/1574/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the trial court's order allowing the impleadment of purchasers who acquired portions of the suit property during the pendency of proceedings after a remand. The Court confirmed the impleadment but directed accelerated disposal.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; order of trial judge in I.A.No.338 of 2014 confirmed; liberty granted to file written statement; suit directed to be disposed within six months.

Ramasamy Vs V.V. Palanisamy — Partition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

C.R.P. No. 1574 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02.11.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

C.R.P.No.1574 of 2015 and

¶7

M.P.No. 1 of 2015

¶8

Ramasamy,

¶9

S/o. Late Krishna Pandithan

¶10

Lakshmanan (died)

¶11

Ganesan, S/o. Late Krishna Pandithan

¶12

L.Ramachandran, S/o.Lakshmanan

¶13

(4^th Petitioner brought on record as LRs of deceased P-2 viz., Lakshmanan vide court order dated 19.10.2022 made in C.M.P. Nos. 12306, 12310 and 12313 of 2022)

¶14

... Petitioners

¶15

Vs.

¶16

V.V.Palanisamy, S/o. Late Vaiyapuri Gounder

¶17

1/10

¶18

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

¶19

C.R.P. No. 1574 of 2015

¶20

V.N.Kathirvel,

¶21

S/o. V.S.Nanjukutti Gounder

¶22

Palaniammal (died)

¶23

Chinnal (died)

¶24

Murugathal, W/o Arumugham

¶25

Annakodi

¶26

W/o Kali

¶27

Nagarathinam W/o Chinnu

¶28

Padmavathy D/o Krishna Pandithan

¶29

Arumugam (died)

¶30

Subramanian (died)

¶31

Balan

¶32

S/o. Palaniappan

¶33

Sivashanmugham S/o Palaniappan

¶34

Meenakshi D/o Marudhachala Navithan

¶35

Subbathal

¶36

D/o. Ramanavithan W/o Ponna

¶37

2/10

¶38

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

¶39

C.R.P. No. 1574 of 2015

¶40

Palaniappan

¶41

Ayyappan S/o. Palaniappan

¶42

Jothi W/o Palaniappan

¶43

P.Jangameswaran, S/o. Late Palaniappan and late Palaniammal

¶44

P.Kumarasamy, S/o. Late Palaniappan and late Palaniammal

¶45

P.Jagadeesan, S/o. Late Palaniappan and late Palaniammal

¶46

P.Saminathan, S/o. Late Palaniappan and late Palaniammal

¶47

P.Krishnamoorthy, S/o. Late Palaniappan and late Palaniammal

¶48

P.Manikandan, S/o. Late Palaniappan and late Palaniammal

¶49

Sivabagyam, W/o. Mani, and D/o. Late Palaniappan and late Palaniammal

¶50

3/10

¶51

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

¶52

C.R.P. No. 1574 of 2015

¶53

Maheswari,

¶54

W/o. Late Maruthachalam D/o. Late Palaniappan and late Palaniammal

¶55

(R17 to R24 brought on record as LRs of deceased R-3 viz., Palaniammal vide court order dated 19.10.2022 made in C.M.P.Nos. 12316, 12318 and 12320 of 2022 in C.R.P. No. 1574 of 2015)

¶56

Bakkiyalakshmi, D/o. Late Arumugam

¶57

Logeswaran, S/o. Late Arumugam

¶58

Ramachandiran, S/o. Late Arumugam

¶59

(R25 to R27 brought on record as LRs of deceased R-8 viz., Arumugam vide court order dated 19.10.2022 made in C.M.P.Nos. 13427 to 13429 of 2022 in C.R.P. No. 1574 of 2015)

¶60

Rajammal, W/o. Late Subramaniyan

¶61

Manimegalai, D/o.Late Subramaniyan

¶62

P.S.Senthilkumar, S/o. Late Subramaniyan

¶63

4/10

¶64

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

¶65

C.R.P. No. 1574 of 2015

¶66

31. Maheswari,

¶67

D/o. Late Subramaniyan

¶68

(R28 to R31 brought on record as LRs of deceased R-9 viz., Subramanian vide court order dated 19.10.2022 made in C.M.P.Nos. 13420 to 13422 of 2022 in C.R.P. No. 1574 of 2015)

¶69

P.Rajamani, S/o. Late Ponnan and late Subbathal

¶70

Pushpa Srinivasan, D/o. Late Ponnan and late Subbathal

¶71

P.Ayyappan, S/o. Late Ponnan and late Subbathal

¶72

(R32 to R34 brought on record as LRs of deceased R-13 viz., Subbathal vide court order dated 19.10.2022 made in C.M.P.Nos. 13431 to 13433 of 2022 in C.R.P. No. 1574 of 2015)

¶73

... Respondents

¶74

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Art. 227 of Constitution of

¶75

India, praying to set aside the order passed on 16.12.2014 in I.A.No.338 of 2014 in O.S.No. 806 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge,

¶76

Coimbatore.

¶77

5/10

¶78

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

¶79

C.R.P. No. 1574 of 2015

¶80

For Petitioners : Mr.C.Deivasigamani For Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukrishnan for R1 & R2

¶81

R3, R8, R9, R13 & R14 – died

¶82

R4 to R7, R10 to R12 – No appearance

¶83

R15 & R16 – Notice sent

¶84

O R D E R

¶85

The revision petitioners are the defendants 1 to 3 in the suit in O.S.No.806 of 1996 on the file of Principal Sub-Judge, Coimbatore, which was filed by the 3^rd respondent/plaintiff Palaniammal herein for the relief of partition and other consequential relief.

¶86

The said suit was contested by the defendants and on merits, the

¶87

suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff. Against which, the defendants 2 and 4 preferred an appeal in A.S.No. 1005 of 2003 before this court and in that appeal proceedings, the suit was remanded back to the trial court for impleading the petitioners in C.M.P.No.71 of 2012 in the suit in O.S.No.806 of 1996 and also give opportunity to all the parties to defend their case by

¶88

6/10

¶89

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

¶90

C.R.P. No. 1574 of 2015

¶91

adducing further oral and documentary evidence. Accordingly, the suit was

¶92

remanded back to the trial court. Thereafter, during the pendency of proceedings, the purchasers filed an application in I.A.No.338 of 2014 under Order 1 Rule 10 and Sec.151 of C.P.C. to implead themselves as defendants 19 and 20 in the suit. The said application was strongly opposed by the parties concerned in the suit. On considering submissions of both sides, the trial judge allowed the application stating that by impleading the said proposed parties, who had purchased a portion of the suit property and since they are having right over the properties, they are necessary parties to the suit proceedings and if they are added as necessary parties to the suit, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents. Challenging the said findings, the defendants 1 to 3 preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

¶93

The learned counsel for Revision Petitioners would submit that the trial court failed to take note of the fact that the suit was remanded back to

¶94

the trial court for the limited purpose. Admittedly, during the pendency of suit proceedings, the 1^st petitioner purchased a portion of the suit property and hence, they are strangers to the property. But, without appreciating the

¶95

7/10

¶96

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

¶97

C.R.P. No. 1574 of 2015

¶98

said fact, the trial court erroneously allowed the application. Hence, he prayed to set aside the order passed by the trial judge.

¶99

The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2/proposed parties submitted that after the disposal of suit, they have purchased a portion of the property and thereafter, in the appeal proceedings, when the suit was remanded back, there is F.I.R. also registered in respect of the dispute between the parties. Admittedly, the purchase was made during the pendency of the proceedings, but they purchased only portion of the property. Hence, they are necessary parties to the proceedings and they have to be impleaded to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the trial judge is justifiable one, which needs no interference.

¶100

In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and the order passed by the trial judge in I.A.No. 338 of 2014 is confirmed. However, liberty is granted to the Revision Petitioners to file additional written statement if any to raise all their defence before the trial court and contest the case by adducing oral and documentary evidence. If some of parties are

¶101

8/10

¶102

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

¶103

C.R.P. No. 1574 of 2015

¶104

to be impleaded, the parties are advised to take appropriate steps before the trial court. Since the suit is pending from the year of 1996, the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial and dispose the case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶105

02.11.2022

¶106

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking/Non-speaking order rpp

¶107

¶108

Principal Sub-Judge, Coimbatore.

¶109

9/10

¶110

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

¶111

C.R.P. No. 1574 of 2015

¶112

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶113

rpp

¶114

C.R.P.No.1574 of 2015

¶115

02.11.2022

¶116

10/10

¶117

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

Ramasamy v. V.V. Palanisamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramasamy v. V.V. Palanisamy

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

Nainmull Jain Vs Madhu

K.Ramasamy Vs Asst Commissioner

M/S.Sms Computer House Vs Margadarsi Chits Private Ltd.

Dakshinamurthi - Died Vs Vasantha

Pappayammal Vs Kunjammal

T.S.Sridharan Vs P.Suvarna