Dismissed

R.Banumathi, v. T.Rajeswari

Madras HC7 Dec 2022CRP(MD)/2412/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging a trial court order in a partition suit. The court rejected the petitioners' claim that a specific property was ancestral, noting it was purchased via registered sale deed from the petitioners' father and paternal uncle, and refused to entertain the revision.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no costs; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

R.Banumathi, Vs T.Rajeswari — Partition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

CRP(MD)No.2412 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 07.12.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

CRP(MD)No.2412 of 2022 and C.M.P(MD).No.11667 of 2022

¶7

1.R.Banumathi 2.A.Ramalingam : Petitioners/Defendants Vs.,

¶8

T.Rajeswari : Respondent/Plaintiff

¶9

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to call for the record and set aside the order dated 19.10.2022 made in I.A.No.163 of 2022 in O.S.No.79 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional District cum Sessions Court, Thanjavur.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Jameel Arasu

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the

¶13

learned II Additional District-cum-Sessions Judge, Thanjavur in I.A.No.163 of 2022 in O.S.No.79 of 2018, dated 19.10.2022.

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

¶16

CRP(MD)No.2412 of 2022

¶17

2.The petitioners herein are the defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.79 of

¶18

2018 filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking for partition. Pending the suit, the petitioners have filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.163 of 2022 alleging that certain joint family properties are not added in the suit filed for partition. They have also mentioned four items of properties. The trial Court by its fair and decreetal order dated 19.10.2022 dismissed the said application stating that those properties were exclusively purchased by the plaintiff by way of registered sale deeds. Aggrieved over the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

¶19

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners

¶20

are not insisting for other three items of properties, they are concerned about the property in S.No.96/6E, which is an ancestral property. However, the trial Court, without considering the right of these petitioners/defendants in the ancestral property, has erroneously dismissed the said application.

¶21

4.This Court considered the submission made by the learned counsel

¶22

and perused the materials placed on record.

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

¶25

CRP(MD)No.2412 of 2022

¶26

5.With regard to the property in S.No.96/6E as referred by the learned

¶27

counsel for the petitioners, the trial Court has assigned the reason that the property was purchased by the plaintiff's husband namely, Thangarasu Nattar from one Krishnasamykatcharaiyar and one Rathnavelkacharaiyar,

¶28

who are the first petitioner's father and paternal uncle, by way of a registered sale deed in the year 1986. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition.

¶29

6.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. However, since the petitioners are still having grievance that the property in S.No.96/6E is an ancestral property, which has been wrongly sold by the first petitioner's father and his paternal uncle, it is always open to them to file a necessary suit for cancelling the document in the manner known to law. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶30

07.12.2022

¶31

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Rmk

¶32

3/4

¶33

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

¶34

CRP(MD)No.2412 of 2022

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

Rmk

The II Additional District cum Sessions Judge, Thanjavur.

¶39

CRP(MD)No.2412 of 2022

¶40

07.12.2022

¶41

4/4

¶42

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

R.Banumathi, v. T.Rajeswari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Banumathi, v. T.Rajeswari

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

C.Paulraj, Vs Suganthi

Selvaraj Vs Divya

R.Muruganantham Vs M.Kalpana

Sri Durga Fancy Store Vs R.Kaverikrishnan

M.Parvathy Vs O.Pitchai

Rajagopal, Vs K.Subramaniyan