Dismissed

Ponumani(Died) Vijayaraja v. E.Malathi(Died) v.Easwaran

Madras HC23 Nov 2022CRP(MD)/2310/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition before the Madras High Court, the petitioners challenged the Subordinate Judge's order dismissing their application to scrap an Advocate Commissioner's report. The Court dismissed the revision, holding that the trial Court is empowered to pass appropriate orders based on available materials and party rights.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ponumani(Died) Vijayaraja Vs E.Malathi(Died) v.Easwaran — Partition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

CRP(MD)No.2310 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 23.11.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

CRP(MD)No.2310 of 2022 and CMP(MD)No.11128 of 2022

¶7

Pounmani (Died)

¶8

1.C.Vijayaraja

¶9

2.S.Sandeep : Petitioners Vs.

E.Malathi (Died)

1.V.Easwaran

2.E.Maheshwaran

3.E.Sathishkumar

Gandhiammal (Died)

4.C.Latha

5.Raja

6.C.Venkateshwari

7.C.Suganya

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

¶20

1/6

¶21

CRP(MD)No.2310 of 2022

¶22

8.M.Ramesh 9.K.Bothumani 10.A.Arulmozhi 11.Karthika 12.C.Malarvizhi 13.K.Kayalvizhi S.Chinnathai (Died) Ochammal (Died) 14.K.Kavitha 15.Prabavathi 16.Minor M.Lathika 17.Minor M.Hariharan 18.Karthikeyan 19.Latha 20.S.Jeyakodi 21.S.Sivaraman 22.M.Chitra 23.S.Lakshmipriya 24.D.Umadevi 25.C.Sangeetha 2/6

¶23

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

¶24

CRP(MD)No.2310 of 2022

¶25

26.S.Rathinam

¶26

27.K.Sevika : Respondents

¶27

[Minor Respondents 16 & 17 are represented through their mother / natural guardian, R.15]

¶28

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to call for the records relating to the fair and decreetal order dated 14.09.2022, made in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in O.S.No.354 of 2021, on the file of the Sub Court, Uthamapalayam and set aside the same.

¶29

For Petitioners : Mr.V.S.Kishok Kumar

¶30

For Respondents : Mr.V.Easwaran

¶31

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The petitioners' fathers are some of the defendants

¶34

in the suit in O.S.No.354 of 2021. The suit was originally filed in the year 1985 for partition, before

¶35

the Sub Court, Periyakulam. The suit was decreed partly on 24.04.1992. The appeal preferred in A.S.No.57 of

¶36

3/6

¶37

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

¶38

CRP(MD)No.2310 of 2022

¶39

1993 was dismissed by the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, by judgment dated 13.09.1996.

¶40

Challenging the same, second appeal was filed before this Court in S.A.No.1773 of 1996 and the same was dismissed as abated.

¶41

2.Final decree application came to be filed on 22.12.2014, wherein, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed. The Advocate Commissioner submitted his report on 18.12.2019, for which, the petitioners have

¶42

filed their objections. They have also filed an

¶43

interlocutory application in I.A.No.2 of 2022 to scrap

¶44

the Advocate Commissioner's report. The said

¶45

application was dismissed by the learned Subordinate

¶46

Judge, Uthamapalayam, by order dated 14.09.2022 and

¶47

challenging the same, the present revision petition is filed.

¶48

3.Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted

¶49

that the final decree application has been filed by the

¶50

4/6

¶51

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

¶52

CRP(MD)No.2310 of 2022

¶53

respondents by including the properties of some third

¶54

parties and the learned Advocate Commissioner has referred the same in his report. These properties, according to the petitioners, are not the properties belonging to their family. The suit is for partition amongst the family members. If the final decree is passed based on these materials, it would not be proper and therefore, they have filed the application to scrap the Advocate Commissioner's report. However, the same was dismissed by the trial Court.

¶55

4.This Court paid it's anxious consideration to the submissions made by the petitioners' Counsel.

¶56

5.The grievance of the petitioners is that some of

¶57

the properties mentioned in the final decree

¶58

application are not the properties of the petitioners' family and that if these properties are allotted in the final decree proceedings, they would be put to grave and irreparable loss. Therefore, they moved an

¶59

5/6

¶60

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

¶61

CRP(MD)No.2310 of 2022

¶62

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶63

¶64

application to scrap the Advocate Commissioner's report.

¶65

6.This Court is not inclined to accept the said

¶66

submission. The trial Court would pass appropriate orders based on the available materials and depending upon the rights of the parties, after taking note of the Advocate Commissioner's report, in accordance with law. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this revision petition.

¶67

Accordingly, this civil revision petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected

¶68

miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶69

Index : Yes / No 23.11.2022 Internet : Yes gk To The Subordinate Judge, Uthamapalayam. CRP(MD)No.2310 of 2022

¶70

6/6

¶71

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

Ponumani(Died) Vijayaraja v. E.Malathi(Died) v.Easwaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ponumani(Died) Vijayaraja v. E.Malathi(Died) v.Easwaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiek Peer (Died) Vs Sheik Mydeen (Died)

S.R.Meiyar Vs the Commissioner

Kartheeswari @ Tharakeswari Vs Muthukumar

Rani Vs Mary Archilin

A. Palanichamy Vs P. Ganesh

V.Abdul Aziz, Vs P.Sankaralingam