Allowed

Krishnammal v. K.Subbaraj

Madras HC17 Jun 2022SA(MD)/733/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC to set aside an order rejecting a plaint before it was taken on record. The court criticized the lower courts for adjudicating title issues without the defendants appearing and ordered the plaint to be taken on record for proceeding with the litigation.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and decree dated 08.03.2010 of the Subordinate Court, Sivakasi and dated 17.08.2009 of the District Munsif, Sattur were set aside. The plaint is directed to be taken on record and the lit

Krishnammal Vs K.Subbaraj — Partition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

S.A.(MD) No.733 of 2010

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 17.06.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶6

S.A.(MD) No.733 of 2010

¶7

1.Smt.Krishnammal 2.S.K.V.Rajendran 3.R.Selvarani 4.V.Udayakumar ... Appellants/Appellants/Plaintiffs

-vs-

1.K.Subbaraj

2.K.Gopalsamy

3.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶12

4.The Sub Registrar, Sattur, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents/Respondents/ Defendants

¶13

Prayer:- Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the judgment and decree dated 08.03.2010 made in A.S.No.19 of 2009 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.08.2009 made in O.S.S.R.No.1760 of 2009 on the file of District Munsif, Sattur.

¶14

_________ Page 1 of 6

¶15

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

¶16

S.A.(MD) No.733 of 2010

¶17

For Appellants : Mr.Antony Arul Raj For R1, 3 & 4 : No appearance For Respondent-2 : Mr.C.S.Ravichandran ******

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

This second appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs challenging an order of the trial Court rejecting the plaint even before it was taken on record.

¶20

2.1. The facts are minimal and they run as follows:-

¶21

2.2. A certain piece of property which includes the suit property herein

¶22

originally belonged to Thayammal and her two sons Veluchamy and Subbaraj, vide partition deed dated 26.10.1959. These parties entered into a partition deed and the suit property came to be allotted to the share of Veluchamy. On the same day, Veluchamy executed a settlement deed in favour of his to be wife Krishnammal (whom he has married subsequently). Veluchamy's wife Krishnammal and her children are the plaintiffs before this Court.

¶23

_________ Page 2 of 6

¶24

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

¶25

S.A.(MD) No.733 of 2010

¶26

3. Be that as it may, Veluchamy's brother Subbaraj had sold the share allotted to him in the aforesaid partition deed to a certain Avudaiammal. Thereafter, he some time in 2006, proceeded to sell the property allotted to the share of Veluchamy to the 2^nd defendant. Interestingly enough, in both the sale deeds, Subbaraj refers to the partition deed dated 26.10.1959. When the sale in favour of the 2^nd defendant threatened the plaintiffs' title over the property allotted to them in the partition deed, they preferred the suit. The suit came to be rejected because both the Courts below went on an expedition to ascertain title even before the suit was taken on record. In other words, the Courts below did not wait for the defendants to enter appearance to putforth their case, but rather stepped into the shoes of the defendants to oppose the plaintiffs. This approach is not approved in procedure. This Court had an occasion to elaborately deal with the aspects which the Court should reckon when the plaint is presented in its judgment in Selvaraj and Others vs. Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Limited, Rep., through its Project Director reported in (2021) 4 CTC 539 :

¶27

_________ Page 3 of 6

¶28

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

¶29

S.A.(MD) No.733 of 2010

¶30

(2021) 5 Mad LJ 467 : (2021) 3 MWN (Civil) 73: (2021) 3 LW 677. The notice sought to be served on the 1^st respondent was returned and others served. This Court is informed that the 1^st respondent/1^st defendant is no more and he has no issues. Since the suit has been rejected even before it was taken on record, the defendant does not have any right of hearing. This Court, therefore, allows this appeal, directs that the plaint be taken on record and further directs the litigation to be proceeded with in accordance with law. No costs.

¶31

17.06.2022

¶32

Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No

¶33

abr

¶34

_________ Page 4 of 6

¶35

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

¶36

S.A.(MD) No.733 of 2010

¶37

¶38

1.The Subordinate Court, Sivakasi 2.The District Munsif, Sattur.

¶39

_________ Page 5 of 6

¶40

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

¶41

S.A.(MD) No.733 of 2010

¶42

N.SESHASAYEE, J.

¶43

abr

¶44

S.A.(MD) No.733 of 2010

¶45

17.06.2022

¶46

_________ Page 6 of 6

¶47

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

Krishnammal v. K.Subbaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnammal v. K.Subbaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N. Angaleshwari, Vs Nallakutti

M.Murugesan Vs Ganesan S/O.Gurusamy

R.Kandasamy Pillai Vs Madurai Sayakkara Thuluva

Aazhvarsamy Nayakkar Vs Chellammal

Kaliyamoorthy Vs Liyakath Ali

Rathinammal(Rethinathammal) Vs Nagarajan