The Madurai Bench dismissed a civil revision petition holding it was not maintainable against a final decree since an appeal lies under Order 41 CPC under settled law.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; liberty granted to file an appeal in 4 weeks; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P.(MD)No.748 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 13.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
C.R.P.(MD)No.748 of 2019 and C.R.P.(MD)No.4472 of 2019
Lindsay Woolridge
... Petitioner / Petitioner/Plaintiff Vs.
Eunice Woolridge (died) Trevelyn Woolridge ... Respondents / Respondents/Defendants
Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order, dated 11.03.2019, in I.A.No.532 of 2016, in O.S.No.68 of 2014, on the file of
the VI Additional District Judge, Madurai.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sekar
For Respondent : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram
ORDER
The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the
order, dated 11.03.2019, in I.A.No.532 of 2016, in O.S.No.68 of 2014,
on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Madurai.
C.R.P.(MD)No.748 of 2019
2.The revision petitioners herein is the petitioner /plaintiff
and the respondents herein are the respondents /defendants before the Court below.
according to their litigative status before the Court below.
20.01.2015 and after passing of preliminary decree the mother of the plaintiff, who was the first defendant, died. Hence, in the preliminary decree application, the plaintiff has altered the ratio of share and prayed for ½ share in the suit property.
C.R.P.(MD)No.748 of 2019
brother, who was the second defendant in the suit and pleaded testamentary succession in respect of their mother's property, viz., undivided 1/3 share in the suit property. According to the defendants, his mother executed a registered Will, dated 02.02.2015 under Document No.18/2015, therefore, his mother's 1/3 share would devolve only upon the defendant, therefore, contended that the alternation of share is without any basis.
second defendant and granted the final decree, only in respect of 1/3 share to the plaintiff.
Court below has not taken into consideration of various suspicious circumstances and that he would submit that the very Will is the fabricated one.
C.R.P.(MD)No.748 of 2019
learned Single Judge has taken a similar view.
C.R.P.(MD)No.748 of 2019
13.09.2023
NCC : Yes/No Index :Yes/No Ls
Note: The Office is required to return the original decree in challenge in this proceedings to the petitioner.
C.R.P.(MD)No.748 of 2019
C.KUMARAPPAN.,J.
Ls
To
1.The VI Additional District Judge, Madurai.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Order made in C.R.P(MD)No.748 of 2019
13.09.2023
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a civil revision petition is maintainable against an order passing a final decree when a statutory appeal remedy is provided under Order 41 of CPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prema V. Dr.SubramaniamRelied on¶40
2016-SCCOnline Mad-15782 (Prema V. Dr.Subramaniam)
K.Arunagirinathan V. R.DakshinamurthiRelied on¶40
C.R.P.(MD)No.1427 of 2022 (K.Arunagirinathan V. R.Dakshinamurthi)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Lindsay Woolridge
Trevelyn Woolridge
C.KUMARAPPAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
