The appellant challenged the lower appellate court's order remanding partition suits to the trial court for fresh consideration on merits. The High Court found no infirmity in the remand order and dismissed the appeals, directing expedited trial.
Directed trial court to dispose of suits within four months.
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.M.A.Nos.1295, 1311,. 1333 & 1369 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.04.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE C.M.A.Nos.1295, 1311, 1333 & 1369 of 2021 and C.M.P Nos.6593, 6645, 6762 and 7039 of 2021
C.M.A No.1295 of 2021
K.U.Rangaraj ... Appellant
..Vs..
1.Rukkummal @ Palaniammal(died) 2.Rukkammani 3.Muthammal
Mrs.Ramathal (died after disposal of A.S) 4.Revathy 5.R.Appusamy (5th respondent was brought on record as legal heirs of the deceased 1st respondent as per the order of this Court dated 07.11.2023 made in CMP Nos.22862,22876, 22879, 24852 to 24860 & 24862 of 2023)
(cause title accepted vide this Court order dated 09.03.2021 made in CMP Nos. 4426, 4385, 4435, 4386 of 2021 in CMA SR.10084, 10083, 10085 & 10086 of 2021 ...Respondents
1/10
C.M.A.Nos.1295, 1311,. 1333 & 1369 of 2021
C.M.A No.1311, 1333 and 1369 of 2021
K.U.Rangaraj
... Appellant
..Vs..
1.Rukkumani 2.Rukkummal @ Palaniammal(died) 3.Muthammal
Mrs.Ramathal (died after disposal of A.S) 4.Revathy 5.R.Appusamy (5th respondent was brought on record as legal heirs of the deceased 2nd respondent as per the order of this Court dated 07.11.2023 made in CMP Nos.22862,22876, 22879, 24852 to 24860 & 24862 of 2023)
(cause title accepted vide this Court order dated 09.03.2021 made in CMP Nos. 4426, 4385, 4435, 4386 of 2021 in CMA SR.10084, 10083, 10085 & 10086 of 2021 ...Respondents
Prayer in C.M.A No.1295 of 2021: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of CPC against the common judgment and decree dated 20.12.2019 passed in A.S No.33 of 2018, by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, by remanding back to the trial Court as against the decree and judgment dated 13.07.2017 passed
2/10
C.M.A.Nos.1295, 1311,. 1333 & 1369 of 2021
in O.S No.64 of 2012 by the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
Prayer in C.M.A No.1311 of 2021: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of CPC against the common judgment and decree dated 20.12.2019 passed in A.S No.90 of 2018, by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, by remanding back to the trial Court as against the decree and judgment dated 13.07.2017 passed in O.S No.415 of 201` by the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
Prayer in C.M.A No.1333 of 2021: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of CPC against the common judgment and decree dated 20.12.2019 passed in A.S No.53 of 2018, by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, by remanding back to the trial Court as against the decree and judgment dated 13.07.2017 passed in O.S No.518 of 2011 by the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
Prayer in C.M.A No.1369 of 2021: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of CPC against the common judgment and decree dated 20.12.2019 passed in A.S No.54 of 2018, by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, by remanding back to the trial Court as against the decree and judgment dated 13.07.2017 passed in O.S No.413 of 2012 by the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
3/10
C.M.A.Nos.1295, 1311,. 1333 & 1369 of 2021
C.M.A No.1295 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.C.Veeraraghavan For Respondents : Mr.C.D.Johnson for R2-R4
C.M.A Nos.1311, 1333, & 1369 of 2021 For Appellant : Mr.C.Veeraraghavan For Respondents : Mr.C.D.Johnson for R1, 3 & 4
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
These four appeals have been filed challenging the common order of
remand passed by the lower Appellate Court namely, V Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in A.S Nos.33 of 2018, 53 of 2018, 54 of 2018 and 19 of 2018.
2.The appellant and the respondents 1 to 3 and the deceased
Ramathal, who is the mother of the 4th respondent herein, are siblings. The appellant is the brother and the respondents 1 to 3 and the deceased Ramathal are the sisters. The appellant had filed a suit for bare injunction before the First Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore in O.S No.64 of 2012.
4/10
C.M.A.Nos.1295, 1311,. 1333 & 1369 of 2021
Thereafter, the respondents 1 to 3 and the deceased Ramathal, who are the sisters of the appellant filed four separate suits. Three suits were filed for partition and one suit was filed for permanent injunction. All the suits tried and heard together. There was a joint trial of all the suits and a common judgment came to be passed by the trial Court. As per the common judgment, the suit filed by the appellant for bare injunction came to be decreed in favour of the appellant and the suits filed by the respondents 1 to 3 and the deceased Ramathal for partition as well as for injunction came to be dismissed.
respondents 1 to 3 and the deceased Ramathal, who are the sisters of the appellant preferred first appeals in A.S Nos.33 of 2018, 53 of 2018, 54 of 2018 and 19 of 2018 on the file of the V Additional District Court, Coimbatore. Under the impugned common judgment dated 20.12.2019 passed in the aforesaid first appeals, the lower Appellate Court, after setting aside the common judgment and decree passed by the trial Court has remanded the matter back to the trial Court for fresh consideration.
5/10
C.M.A.Nos.1295, 1311,. 1333 & 1369 of 2021
Aggrieved by the order of the remand, these four appeals have been filed by the appellant, who is the brother of the respondents 1 to 3 and the deceased Ramathal.
Court for fresh consideration on the following grounds:
a) The respondents have disputed the existence of a
Will in favour of the appellant. The respondents have claimed that the Will is a forged and fabricated document.
b) The appellant has not examined any other
witnesses to the Will but has only examined the scribe.
c) The appellant has not examined any of the legal
heirs or any other person who is well acquainted with the signatures of the witnesses to the Will.
d) The appellant has not explained as to why none
of the relations of the deceased attestor were not examined to prove the signature of the testator. It is also
6/10
C.M.A.Nos.1295, 1311,. 1333 & 1369 of 2021
not the case of the appellant that such witnesses (relatives) were not available for letting in evidence.
7/10
C.M.A.Nos.1295, 1311,. 1333 & 1369 of 2021
Court pursuant to the order of the remand, the trial itself would have got completed and the verdict would have been rendered. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served, if these appeals are entertained at this stage, that too when this Court does not find any infirmity in the findings of the lower Appellate Court. However, in the interest of all the parties to the dispute, a direction will have to be issued by this Court for earlier disposal of the suits.
12.04.2024
Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order uma
8/10
C.M.A.Nos.1295, 1311,. 1333 & 1369 of 2021
To
9/10
C.M.A.Nos.1295, 1311,. 1333 & 1369 of 2021
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
uma
C.M.A.Nos.1295, 1311, 1333 and 1369 of 2021 and C.M.P Nos.6593, 6645, 6762 and 7039 of 2021
12.04.2024
10/10
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the lower Appellate Court erred in remanding the suits for fresh consideration on facts regarding the Will and evidence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.U.Rangaraj
Rukkummal @ Palaniammal
Rukkumani
Muthammal
Ramathal
Revathy
Abdul Qudhose
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
