Dismissed

Dheivanilla v. Mayilvahanan

Madras HC15 Dec 2023REV.APPL/50/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A review application challenging observations in a civil revision order that declared a decree invalid. The court removed specific observations regarding the decree's invalidity but dismissed the review, finding no merit in the applicant's claim of a valid made-over decree.

What did the court decide?

The Review Application is dismissed as it has no merit. However, observations in paras 6 and 7 declaring the decree invalid are removed. Liberty is granted to parties to object to a pending ex-parte d

Dheivanilla Vs Mayilvahanan — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Rev. Appl. No. 50 of 2023 against C.R.P.No. 4813 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 15.12.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

Rev. Appl. No. 50 of 2023 and C.M.P.No. 4100 of 2023 against C.R.P. No. 4813 of 2017

¶7

Dheivanilla

¶8

Vasanthi

¶9

S.Natarajan

¶10

A.Senthilkumar

¶11

Dharani

¶12

Kalaiyarasi

¶13

Thanikachalam ... Applicants

¶14

Versus

¶15

Mayilvahanan

¶16

Ramachandran

¶17

Ravi

¶18

Indiragandhi

¶19

Perumal Asari

¶20

Saroja

¶21

Rajendiran

¶22

Venmal

¶23

1/6

¶24

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

¶25

Rev. Appl. No. 50 of 2023 against C.R.P.No. 4813 of 2017

¶26

Parvathiammal 9. Rajee 10. Ganesan 11. Sivakumar 12. Ganesan

¶27

The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Attur.

¶28

C.Thangaraj 15. C.A.Thangaraj

¶29

... Respondents

¶30

Prayer:- Review Application has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w 114 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to review the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 31.10.2022 passed in C.R.P.No. 4813 of 2017.

¶31

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Subramaniyan

¶32

ORDER

¶33

This Review Application has been filed by the Review Applicant

¶34

praying to review the order passed by this court as there is an error while passing the impugned order, which is beyond the scope of Civil Revision Petition in respect of an observation made by this court about the decree passed in O.S.No. 328 of 1981.

¶35

2/6

¶36

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

¶37

2. Heard both sides.

¶38

Rev. Appl. No. 50 of 2023 against C.R.P.No. 4813 of 2017

¶39

The learned counsel for Review Applicants would submit that the plaintiff Arumugam in the suit in O.S.No. 328 of 1981 had made over the decree, based on that, they wanted to implead themselves as necessary parties in the L.A.O.P. proceedings. On hearing both sides, while disposing the matter, this Court made an observation with regard to the decree in O.S.No. 328 of 1981 as it is an invalid decree. Aggrieved over the same, this Review Application was filed by the Review Applicants stating that scope of the application is only to implead parties based upon the made over decree, but this court made an observation that the said decree itself is invalid and non-est in law, which is beyond the scope of Civil Revision Petition. Hence, the Review Applicants prayed to review the findings.

¶40

On perusal of entire order, this Court is not inclined to allow the Review Application as there is no merit in the application for the reason that the alleged made over claimed by the Revision Petitioners as such is not

¶41

3/6

¶42

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

¶43

Rev. Appl. No. 50 of 2023 against C.R.P.No. 4813 of 2017

¶44

acceptable one and non-est in law. But, the learned counsel for Review Applicants would submit that before the trial court, already there is an application filed by the original legal heirs of Arumugam to set aside the exparte decree. In such circumstances, if any observation is made in respect of exparte decree in the Civil Revision Petition, which would affect their right to take defence in the said interlocutary application. Therefore, considering the said objection, this Court is inclined to remove the following observations made in paras 6 as well as in para 7 of the order with regard to the decree passed in O.S.No. 328 of 1981 is beyond the scope of Civil Revision Petition, which is extracted hereunder :-

¶45

“6. ........The conduct of trial judge is unjustifiable one and the same is amounting to ignorance of law. Therefore, this court reserves its right to call for explanation from the concerned officer on the administrative side.

¶46

7.................Hence, the decree is totally invalid and nonest in law. However, based on an invalid decree, the legal heirs of Arumugam made over the decree in favour of Revision Petitioner and Respondents 21 and 22, as such is not

¶47

4/6

¶48

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

¶49

Rev. Appl. No. 50 of 2023 against C.R.P.No. 4813 of 2017

¶50

maintainable in law. At the most, the legal heirs of

¶51

Arumugam has to approach the trial court to prove the Will as if they are having right over the property. Therefore, the

¶52

reasons assigned by the trial judge in I.A.No.9 of 2016 is set aside, besides the decree in O.S.No.328 of 1981 is also

¶53

nonest in the eye of law.”

¶54

However, the Revision Petitioner failed to establish that he has obtained a valid made over decree and the trial judge has also rightly dismissed the application, which needs no interference. If at all, any application is pending before the trial court to set aside the exparte decree passed in O.S.No. 328 of 1981 subject to proof of Will, both parties are given liberty to raise their objections as per the manner known to law. Accordingly, this Review Application is dismissed as no merit confirming the findings of trial judge. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

15.12.2023

rpp

5/6

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

¶59

Rev. Appl. No. 50 of 2023 against C.R.P.No. 4813 of 2017

¶60

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶61

rpp

¶62

Pre-delivery order in Rev. Appl. No. 50 of 2023 against C.R.P.No. 4813 of 2017

¶63

15.12.2023

¶64

6/6

¶65

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

Dheivanilla v. Mayilvahanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dheivanilla v. Mayilvahanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Infant Judina Fernando Vs J.David Anthony

T.Edith Lydia Vs R.Suganthan

Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd. Vs C.N.Srinivasan

D.Vasantha Vs v.Krishnamoorthy

Loheswari @ Priya Vs N.Srinivasan

Auxlin Diana Vs Praveen Kumar