Dismissed

S.P.S.Murugesan v. a.T,Chinnadurai

Madras HC17 Apr 2023CRP(MD)/1012/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 226 challenging an order allowing private respondents to implead in a succession suit. The Court held the order did not determine legal representative status and called for no interference, directing the Trial Court to expedite the suit.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The Trial Court is directed to allow private respondents to file written statements within 15 days and dis

S.P.S.Murugesan Vs a.T,Chinnadurai — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P(MD).No.1012 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 17.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

C.R.P(MD).No.1012 of 2023 and CMP(MD)No.4754 of 2023

¶7

1.S.P.S.Murugesan

¶8

2.Pushpavalli

¶9

3.S.P.S.Palanivel ...Petitioners 1 to 3/Respondents 1 to 3/ Original Plaintiffs 1 to 3

¶10

Vs. 1.A.T. Chinnadurai

2.C.M.Murugesan

3.A.T.C.Subramani

4.C.Radhakrishnan

5.C.Manikandan

...Respondents 1 to 5/Respondents 1 to 5/ Petitioners 1 to 5/Proposed implead Defendants 3 to 7

¶16

6.The District Collector, District Collector Office, Dindigul.

¶17

7.The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Kodaikanal,

¶18

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

¶19

1/6

¶20

C.R.P(MD).No.1012 of 2023

¶21

Dindigul District. ...Respondents 6 & 7/Respondents 6 & 7/ Respondents 4 & 5/Defendants 1 & 2

¶22

PRAYER:- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Impugned fair and decreetal Order passed in I.A. No.68 of 2022 in O.S. No. 8 of 2021 dated 23.03.2023 (On the file of District Munsif Court-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal.

¶23

For petitioner : Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners to set aside the Impugned fair and decreetal Order passed by the District Munsif Court-cum-Judicial Magistrate,Kodaikanal in I.A. No.68/2022 in O.S. No. 8/2021 dated 23.03.2023.

¶26

2.The petitioners are the plaintiffs before the District Munsif Court cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal, in O.S.No.8 of 2021. The suit was filed for a declaration. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased brother and his wife and their minor child aged about 10 years, who died brutally due to LPG gas on 29.12.2018 under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is submitted that the Trial Court has committed a grave error in allowing the application for impleading the private respondents herein

¶27

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

C.R.P(MD).No.1012 of 2023

¶29

namely, the respondents 1 to 5. Admittedly, the respondents 2 to 5 are the last legal heirs under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is submitted that the private respondents have also obtained death certificate and legal heir certificate for substantiating the vital facts. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kodaikonal also cancelled the legal heir certificate granted to the private respondents herein. Therefore, it is submitted that the Trial Court ought to have dismissed the application filed by the private respondents herein for impleading themselves as defendants in the above suit.

¶30

3.I have considered considered the argument advanced by the learned

¶31

counsel for the petitioner.

¶32

4.The relevant portion of the impugned judgment and decree reads as

¶33

under:-

¶34

'jPh;t[

¶35

,k;kDtpy; ehk; kpft[k; Kf;fpakhf jPh;khdpf;fg;gl ntz;oa gpur;rid ahbjdpy; ,we;J nghd fnzrdpd; thhpRjhuh;fs; 1 Kjy; 3 thjpfs; Mthh;fs; vd;gJ xg;g[f;bfhs;sg;gl;l rq;fjp. mnjnghy;> ,we;Jnghd kQ;Rshnjtpapd; kw;Wk; tp;Zgphpahtpd; thhpRjhuh;fshf ,we;Jnghd kQ;Rshnjtpapd; je;ij kw;Wk; rnfhjuh;fs; 1 Kjy; 5 kDjhuh;fs;/3 Kjy; 7 gpujpthjpfs; thhpRjhuh;fshf nrh;f;f kDr;bra;Js;sdh;. ,k;kDtpy; 1 Kjy; 5 kDjhuh;fis 3 Kjy; 7

¶36

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

C.R.P(MD).No.1012 of 2023

¶38

gpujpthjpfshf nrh;g;gjpy; vjph;kDjhuh;fs;/thjpfSf;F vt;tpj ,Hg;g[k; Vw;glg; nghtjpy;iy. Mf ,U jug;gpdiua[k; xd;W nrh;j;J tHf;F elj;jpdhy;jhd; tHf;fpd; Kotpy; jhd; thhpRjhuh;fs; ahh;? ahh;? Vd;gJ Fwpj;J tpil fhz Koa[k; vd;gjhy; jw;rkak; ePjpapd;ghy; kDjhuh;fs;/3 Kjy; 7 gpujpthjpfshf fl;rp nrh;f;f ,e;ePjpkd;wk; jPh;t[ fhz;fpwJ.

¶39

,Wjpahf>

¶40

1.,k;kD mDkjpf;fg;gLfpwJ.

¶41

2.kDtpy; nfhhpago kDjhuh;fs/3 Kjy; 7 gpujpthjpfshf fl;rp nrh;j;J tHf;Fiuia jpUj;jk; bra;J> jpUj;jg;gl;l gpuhJ jhf;fy; bra;a ,jd; K:yk; cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.

¶42

3.mtuth;fspd; bryt[j; bjhifia mtuth;fns Vw;Wf; bfhs;s cj;jutpLfpd;wJ.'

¶43

5.There is no determination as to whether the private respondents are indeed the legal representatives or the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased brother, brother's wife and child, who died on 29.12.2018. The application that has been merely allowed the private parties to implead as defendants. It does not mean that there is a final determination as to who are the legal representatives of the deceased persons.

¶44

6.In my view, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. Considering the suit is of the year 2021, there shall be a direction to the private respondents to file their written statement within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Trial Court thereafter frame

¶45

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

C.R.P(MD).No.1012 of 2023

¶47

issues and dispose the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within a

¶48

period of 15 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶49

7.With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶50

17.04.2023

¶51

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes/No dss To

¶52

1.The District Munsif Court-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal.

¶53

2.The District Collector, District Collector Office, Dindigul.

¶54

3.The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.

¶55

4.The Record Keeper, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶56

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

C.R.P(MD).No.1012 of 2023

¶58

C.SARAVANAN,J.

¶59

dss

¶60

C.R.P(MD).No.1012 of 2023

¶61

17.04.2023

¶62

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.P.S.Murugesan v. a.T,Chinnadurai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.P.S.Murugesan v. a.T,Chinnadurai

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

Benjamin, Vs Thankamony

M. Pradeep Arumugam, Vs Jansirani

R.v.R.Sendrayan Vs the Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd.

A. Saraswathi Vs J. Muniyammal

M.R.Ganesh Vs S. Balamurugan

Muthayan, Vs Palani Chikku Gounder