Allowed

D. Vijayakumar v. S. Padmavathi

Madras HC3 Dec 2024CRP/4551/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition challenging an order impleading parties in a partition suit without prior notice. Interfering on procedural grounds, the court set aside the order, restored the application, directed the lower court to serve notice, and mandated disposal within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 04.01.2024 set aside; I.A.No.2 of 2023 restored; subordinate judge to issue notice and dispose within eight weeks.

D. Vijayakumar Vs S. Padmavathi — Partition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P.(PD)No.4551 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03.12.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

C.R.P.(PD)No.4551 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.25347 of 2024

¶7

R.Devarajalu (died)

¶8

D.Vijayakumar .. Petitioner

¶9

¶10

S.Padmavathi

¶11

S.Ranganathan

¶12

S.Venkatesh

¶13

R.Krishnamoorthy

¶14

Radhamani

¶15

T.K.Damodaran

¶16

Banumathi

¶17

Ravichandran

¶18

Govindaraj .. Respondents

¶19

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order dated 04.01.2024 made in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in O.S.No.765 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court at Coimbatore.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Thangavel

¶21

1/6

¶22

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

¶23

C.R.P.(PD)No.4551 of 2024

¶24

For RR1 to 3 : Mr.K.M.Hareesh For RR4 to 9 : Mr.P.Valliappan, Senior Counsel for M/s.P.V.Law Associates

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

This civil revision petition arises against the order passed by the

¶27

learned I Additional Subordinate Judge at Coimbatore in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in O.S.No.765 of 2010 dated 04.01.2024.

¶28

The civil revision petitioner is the 2^nd plaintiff in the suit. He has been brought on record as a legal representative of the deceased 1^st plaintiff. It is not necessary to delve deep into the facts of the case. Suffice it to say, O.S.No.765 of 2010 is a suit for partition and separate possession. The defendants 1 to 4 were served and they had also entered appearance in the suit.

¶29

Pending the suit, the defendants 1 to 3 filed an application to implead respondents 5 to 9 herein as defendant Nos.5 to 9 in the suit. This application was received as I.A.No.2 of 2023. The application was resisted by the plaintiffs pleading that the proposed defendants had already executed a release deed in favour of the deceased 1^st plaintiff,

¶30

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

¶31

2/6

¶32

C.R.P.(PD)No.4551 of 2024

¶33

R.Samalu/father of defendants 2 & 3 and R.Krishnamurthy/4^th defendant. The release deed is a registered document dated 27.11.1985. The learned Judge proceeded to allow the application, without issuing notice to the proposed defendants. Hence, this revision.

¶34

When the matter came up for admission on 15.11.2024, I requested Mr.S.Thangavel to serve notice on the parties and listed the matter today.

¶35

I heard Mr.S.Thangavel for the civil revision petitioner, Mr.K.M.Hareesh for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel, for M/s.P.V.Law Associates on behalf of respondents 4 to 9.

¶36

In a suit for partition, every sharer is entitled to be impleaded as a party. This is the fundamental principle of law. It is the case of Mr.S.Thangavel that, on 27.11.1985, the proposed parties had executed a release deed. Therefore, they are not necessary parties.

¶37

Mr.P.Valliappan points out that the release deed dated 27.11.1985 was with respect to the ancestral properties and not for the

¶38

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

¶39

3/6

¶40

C.R.P.(PD)No.4551 of 2024

¶41

self-acquired properties, which is the subject matter of the present suit. I need not trouble myself to give finding to the said issue. I find serious lacuna in the procedure that has been followed by the learned Judge. The learned Judge has allowed the application for impleading, even without issuing notice to the proposed parties.

¶42

A party, who is to be impleaded as a party to the suit, is entitled to be heard before an order is passed impleading him. That procedure has not been followed. Hence, I am interfering with the order only on that ground. Whether the release deed exonerates the necessity of impleading defendants 5 to 9 as parties to the suit or whether it is confined to ancestral parties alone are the matters which the learned Judge would take a call again after hearing the proposed parties. Since notice has not been served on the proposed parties, I am inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Judge.

¶43

The civil revision petition stands allowed with the following directions:

¶44

(i) The order dated 04.01.2024 made in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in O.S.No.765 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court at

¶45

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

¶46

4/6

¶47

C.R.P.(PD)No.4551 of 2024

¶48

Coimbatore is set aside.

¶49

(ii) I.A.No.2 of 2023 in O.S.No.765 of 2010 is restored on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court at Coimbatore.

¶50

(iii) The learned Judge shall issue notice to the proposed defendants 5 to 9. Once they are served, the learned Judge shall hear their objections, if any, and pass orders after hearing the submissions of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3.

¶51

(iv) The said application will be disposed of within a period of

¶52

eight weeks from the date of service of defendants 5 to 9. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶53

03.12.2024

¶54

Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶55

¶56

To I Additional Subordinate Judge at Coimbatore.

¶57

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.

¶58

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

¶59

5/6

¶60

C.R.P.(PD)No.4551 of 2024

¶61

¶62

C.R.P.(PD)No.4551 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.25347 of 2024

¶63

03.12.2024

¶64

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

¶65

6/6

D. Vijayakumar v. S. Padmavathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Vijayakumar v. S. Padmavathi

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

T.Tamilarasan Vs M.Vezhavendan

B.Priyadarshini Vs Sathyanarayanan S

S.Hari Prasath Vs E.Swetha

S.Kalliappan Vs Nil

Prakash Vs Subramanian

Velu Vs Sathya