Dismissed

Karumbachalam, v. Tamilselvi

Madras HC7 Aug 2024CMP(MD)/6155/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a pending appeal over fractional shares arising from a Pudukkottai partition suit, petitions seeking plaint amendment to add properties and impleading of proposed respondents were heard and dismissed as the proposed persons were neither necessary nor proper parties.

What did the court decide?

None granted; both CMPs dismissed, liberty reserved to proposed respondents to seek remedy elsewhere.

Karumbachalam, Vs Tamilselvi — Partition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

AS(MD) No.116 of 2014

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶3

Wednesday, the Seventh day of August Two Thousand and Twenty Four

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Honble Mr.Justice P.VELMURUGAN and The Honble Mr.Justice K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN

¶6

CMP(MD) Nos.6155 and 6157 of 2022 in AS(MD) No.116 of 2014

¶7

KARUMBACHALAM ... Petitioner / Respondent in both petitions Vs

¶8

1 TAMILSELVI ... 1^st Respondent / Appellant in both petitions

¶9

2 MUTHUKARUPPAN 3 ARUMUGAM 4 KARUPPAYEE

¶10

5 RENGAN 6 KATHAN

¶11

... Respondents 2 to 6 / Proposed Respondents 2 to 6 in both petitions

¶12

Prayer in CMP(MD). 6155/ 2022 :

¶13

To allow this petition for amendment directing the respondent / appellant/ plaintiff to amend the plaint in the suit by including below mentioned properties and thus render justice.

¶14

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

¶15

1/3

¶16

AS(MD) No.116 of 2014

¶17

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTIES

¶18

Pudukottai District, Illuppur Taluk, Vilathuppatti Village

¶19

1.	537/6	Wet	0.06.5 Hectares
2.	537/10	Wet	0.38.5 Hectares
3.	534/45	Wet	0.08.5 Hectares
4.	531/129	Wet	0.01.0 Hectares
5.	532/62	Wet	0.05.5 Hectares
6.	533/81A	Wet	0.01.0 Hectares
7.	533/89A	Wet	0.07.0 Hectares
8.	533/80B	Wet	0.01.0 Hectares
9.	533/1A	Nanjai	0.04.5 Hectares
10.	533/108	"	0.05.5 Hectares
11.	533/109	"	0.07.0 Hectares
12.	533/84A	"	0.02.5 Hectares
13.	533/83A	"	0.01.0 Hectares

¶20

Prayer in CMP(MD). 6157/ 2022 :

¶21

To implead the proposed respondents 2 to 6 as respondents 2 to 6 in the above appeal suit in A.S.No.116 of 2014 and pass such further or other orders as this Hon`ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

¶22

Prayer in AS(MD) No.116 of 2014:

¶23

To set aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.54 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai regarding fraction of share and decree the suit as prayed for by allowing this appeal.

¶24

COMMON ORDER : These civil miscellaneous petitions coming up for orders on this day, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S. PT. THIRAVIAM, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr.N.BALAKRISHNAN, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.PARANJOTHI, Advocate on behalf of the Respondents, the Court made the following order:-

¶25

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

¶26

2/3

¶27

AS(MD) No.116 of 2014

¶28

[Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN, J.]

¶29

The proposed respondents are neither necessary parties nor proper parties to

¶30

decide the issue involved in the Appeal Suit. Therefore, these petitions are

¶31

dismissed. However, the proposed respondents are at liberty to workout their

¶32

remedy in the manner known to law.

¶33

sd/07/08/2024

¶34

/ TRUE COPY /

¶35

/08/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.I /II /III /IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶36

YUVA

¶37

¶38

The Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai.

¶39

ORDER IN CMP(MD) Nos.6155 and 6157 of 2022 in AS(MD) No.116 of 2014 Date :07/08/2024

¶40

ED/ GS /SAR- (13/08/2024) 3P / 2C

¶41

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023

¶42

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

¶43

3/3

Karumbachalam, v. Tamilselvi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karumbachalam, v. Tamilselvi

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

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Vs Jothi

Sanjay Salaji Vs T. Radha

Cholamandalam M/S General Vs Sudha

A.Rajendran, Vs the Joint Commissioner

H.Abdul Gani(Died) Vs Venmathi Aachi

K. Paulraj, S/O. Kamalan Gener Vs the Principal Secretary