Dismissed

Anitha R.Sivanandam Nadar v. C.kamaraj Nadr (died) 1.E.Packyaraj

Madras HC27 Mar 2024CRP(MD)/331/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Trial court had allowed the widow and other members to be impleaded as plaintiffs to continue a suit challenging an association election after the original plaintiff died. The High Court held the suit vindicates a common cause of all members, not a personal right, so it does not die with the plaintiff; all revision petitions were dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Anitha R.Sivanandam Nadar Vs C.kamaraj Nadr… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated: 27/03/2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN

¶6

C.R.P(MD)Nos.331 to 333 of 2024, 719 to 731 of 2024 and

¶7

CMP(MD)Nos.1532, 1533, 1535, 1536, 1539, 1541, 3850, 3852, 3853, 3854 of 2024

¶8

(1)CRP(MD)No.333 of 2024:

¶9

Anitha R.Sivanandam Nadar : Petitioner/1^st Respondent/ 1^st Defendant

¶10

Vs.

¶11

C.Kamaraj Nadar (Died)

¶12

1.K.Usha : 1^st Respondent/Appellant/

¶13

Impleading plaintiff

¶14

2.Tirunelveli Dakshanamara Nadar Sangam,

¶15

Rep. by its Secretary,

¶16

Door No.70, Sindhupoondurai Salai Street,

¶17

Tirunelveli District. : 2^nd Respondent/2^nd Respondent/

¶18

2^nd Defendant

¶19

PRAYER: -Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 07/12/2023 in IA No. 33 of 2023 in OS No.205 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli and pass further or other orders.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.E.O.M.Prakash

¶21

Senior Counsel

¶22

for Mr.G.Adithya Raj

¶23

For 1^st Respondent : Mr.V.Raghavachari

¶24

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

¶25

1/40

¶26

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶27

For 2^nd Respondent : Mr.S.Meenakshmi Sundaram

¶28

Senior Counsel Mr.R.T.Arivu Kumar

¶29

(2).CRP(MD)No.720 of 2024:-

¶30

Anitha R.Sivanandam Nadar : Petitioner/1^st Respondent/ 1^st Defendant

¶31

Vs.

¶32

C.Kamaraj Nadar (Died) 1.K.Usha : 1^st Respondent/Appellant/ Impleading Plaintiff

¶33

2.Tirunelveli Dakshanamara Nadar Sangam, Rep. by its Secretary, Door No.70, Sindhupoondurai Salai Street, Tirunelveli District. : 2^nd Respondent/

¶34

^nd Respondent/2^nd Defendant

¶35

PRAYER: -Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 07/12/2023 in IA No. 35 of 2023 in IA No.2 of 2022 in OS No.205 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli and pass further or other orders.

¶36

For Petitioner : Mr.E.O.M.Prakash Senior Counsel for Mr.G.Adithya Raj

¶37

For 1^st Respondent : Mr.V.Raghavachari Senior Counsel for Mr.P.P.Alwin Balan

¶38

For 2^nd Respondent : Mr.S.Meenakshmi Sundaram Senior Counsel Mr.R.T.Arivu Kumar

¶39

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

¶40

2/40

¶41

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶42

(3).CRP(MD)No.722 of 2024:-

¶43

Anitha R.Sivanandam Nadar : Petitioner/1^st Respondent/

¶44

^st Respondent/1^st Defendant

¶45

Vs.

¶46

C.Kamaraj Nadar (died)

¶47

1.K.Usha : 1^st Respondent/Appellant/

¶48

2.Tirunelveli Dakshanamara Nadar Sangam, Rep. by its Secretary, Door No.70, Sindhupoondurai Salai Street, Tirunelveli District. : R2/R2/R2/2^nd Defendant

¶49

3.The District Registrar of Societies (Administration), Tirunelveli Registration District, Combined Registration Department Office, Behind St. John's School, Sankar Colony, Palayamkotai.

¶50

4.Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Office of Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Near to Rani Annai College, Tirunelveli.

¶51

5.Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its District Collector, Tirunelveli District. : R3 to R5/Respondents/ Respondents/Proposed Defendants

¶52

PRAYER: -Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 07/12/2023 in IA No. 37 of 2023 in IA No.3 of 2022 in OS No.205 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli and pass further or other orders.

¶53

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

¶54

3/40

¶55

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶56

For Petitioner : Mr.E.O.M.Prakash Senior Counsel for Mr.G.Adithya Raj For 1^st Respondent : Mr.V.Raghavachari Senior Counsel for Mr.P.P.Alwin Balan For 2^nd Respondent : Mr.S.Meenakshmi Sundaram Senior Counsel Mr.R.T.Arivu Kumar For R3 to R5 : Mr.A.Sivanu Pandian Government Advocate (Civil) (4).CRP(MD)No.724 of 2024:- Anitha R.Sivanandam Nadar : Petitioner/1^st Respondent/ 1^st Respondent/1^st Defendant Vs.

¶57

C.Kamaraj Nadar (died) 1.K.Usha : 1^st Respondent/Appellant/ Proposed Appellant/ Impleading Plaintiff

¶58

2.Tirunelveli Dakshanamara Nadar Sangam, Rep. by its Secretary, Door No.70, Sindhupoondurai Salai Street, Tirunelveli District. : R2/R2/R2/2^nd Defendant

¶59

3.The District Registrar of Societies (Administration), Tirunelveli Registration District, Combined Registration Department Office, Behind St. John's School, Sankar Colony, Palayamkotai.

¶60

4.Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Office of Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Near to Rani Annai College, Tirunelveli.

¶61

5.Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its District Collector, Tirunelveli District. :R3 to R5/Respondents/ Respondents/Proposed Defendants

¶62

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

¶63

4/40

¶64

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶65

¶66

For Petitioner : Mr.E.O.M.Prakash Senior Counsel for Mr.G.Adithya Raj

¶67

For 1^st Respondent : Mr.V.Raghavachari

¶68

Senior Counsel for Mr.P.P.Alwin Balan

¶69

For 2^nd Respondent : Mr.S.Meenakshmi Sundaram

¶70

Senior Counsel Mr.R.T.Arivu Kumar

¶71

For R3 to R5 : Mr.A.Sivanu Pandian Government Advocate (Civil)

¶72

(5).CRP(MD)No.725 of 2024:-

¶73

Anitha R.Sivanandam Nadar : Petitioner/1^st Respondent/ 1^st Respondent/1^st Defendant

¶74

Vs.

¶75

C.Kamaraj Nadar (died)

¶76

1.K.Usha : 1^st Respondent/Appellant/

¶77

2.Tirunelveli Dakshanamara Nadar Sangam, Rep. by its Secretary, Door No.70, Sindhupoondurai Salai Street, Tirunelveli District. : R2/R2/R2/2^nd Defendant

¶78

PRAYER: -Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 07/12/2023 in IA No.

¶79

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

¶80

5/40

¶81

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶82

41 of 2023 in IA No.11of 2022 in OS No.205 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli and pass further or other orders.

¶83

For Petitioner : Mr.E.O.M.Prakash Senior Counsel for Mr.G.Adithya Raj For 1^st Respondent : Mr.V.Raghavachari Senior Counsel for Mr.P.P.Alwin Balan For 2^nd Respondent : Mr.S.Meenakshmi Sundaram Senior Counsel Mr.R.T.Arivu Kumar

¶84

(6).CRP(MD)No.727 of 2024:- Anitha R.Sivanandam Nadar : Petitioner/1^st Respondent/ 1^st Defendant Vs.

¶85

C.Kamaraj Nadar (died) 1.K.Usha : 1^st Respondent/Appellants/ Proposed Appellant/ Impleadings Plaintiff

¶86

2.Tirunelveli Dakashanamara Nadar Sangam, Rep. by its Secretary, Door No.70, Sindhupoondurai Salai Street, Tirunelveli District : 2^nd Respondent/ 2^nd Respondent/2^nd Defendant 3.R.K.Kalidasan Nadar 4.T.Rajakumar Nadar 5.A.Selvaraj Nadar 6.VP Ramanathan Nadar 7.SKTB Kamaraj Nadar 8.Kamaraj Nadar 9.SRS Umarisankar Nadar 10.SR Vaidyalingam Nadar 11.A.Kalyanasundaram Nadar 12.SA.Sivabalan Nadar 13.T.Arumuganainar Nadar

¶87

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

¶88

6/40

¶89

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶90

14.S.Sivasankar Nadar 15.SS Chandrasekar Nadar 16.S.Selvan Nadar 17.S.Nithyabalaiya Nadar 18.S.Essakimuthu @ Ashokan Nadar 19.K.Ravindran Nadar 20.P.Natesan Nadar 21.M.Thanithangam 22.A.Naynar Nadar 23.R.Brahmanand Nadar 24.S.Ramasubbu Nadar 25.S.Janakar Nadar 26.AP Sathishkumar Nadar 27.P.Selvaraj Nadar 28.R.Thangavelu Nadar 29.K.Balraj Nadar 30.SK Chellapandi Nadar 31.SK Radhakrishnan Nadar 32.AB Ramesh Nadar 33.B.Manickavasagam Nadar 34.P.Ragunathan Nadar 35.A.Ashokan Nadar 36.P.Ragavan Nadar 37.D.Soundarraj Nadar 38.S.Anbulingam Nadar 39.P.S.Kaniraj Nadar : R3 to R39/Respondents/ Respondents/ Proposed Defendants PRAYER: -Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 07/12/2023 in IA No. 43 of 2023 in IA No.18 of 2022 in OS No.205 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli and pass further or other orders.

¶91

¶92

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

¶93

7/40

¶94

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶95

(7).CRP(MD)No.729 of 2024:-

¶96

Anitha R.Sivanandam Nadar : Petitioner/1^st Respondent/ 1^st Defendant

¶97

¶98

C.Kamaraj Nadar (died) 1.K.Usha : 1^st Respondent/Appellants/ Proposed Appellant/ Impleadings Plaintiff 2.Tirunelveli Dakashanamara Nadar Sangam, Rep. by its Secretary, Door No.70, Sindhupoondurai Salai Street, Tirunelveli District : 2^nd Respondent/ 2^nd Respondent/2^nd Defendant

¶99

PRAYER: -Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 07/12/2023 in IA No. 45 of 2023 in IA No.19 of 2022 in OS No.205 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli and pass further or other orders.

¶100

For Petitioner : Mr.E.O.M.Prakash Senior Counsel for Mr.G.Adithya Raj For 1^st Respondent : Mr.V.Raghavachari Senior Counsel for Mr.P.P.Alwin Balan

¶101

For 2^nd Respondent : Mr.S.Meenakshmi Sundaram Senior Counsel Mr.R.T.Arivu Kumar

¶102

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

¶103

8/40

¶104

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶105

(8).CRP(MD)No.730 of 2024:-

¶106

Anitha R.Sivanandam Nadar : Petitioner/1^st Respondent/ 1^st Defendant Vs.

¶107

C.Kamaraj Nadar (died) 1.K.Usha : 1^st Respondent/Appellants/ Impleadings Plaintiff

¶108

2.Tirunelveli Dakashanamara Nadar Sangam, Rep. by its Secretary, Door No.70, Sindhupoondurai Salai Street, Tirunelveli District : 2^nd Respondent/ 2^nd Respondent/2^nd Defendant

¶109

PRAYER: -Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 07/12/2023 in IA No. 46 of 2023 in IA No.20 of 2023 in OS No.205 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli and pass further or other orders.

¶110

For Petitioner : Mr.E.O.M.Prakash Senior Counsel for Mr.G.Adithya Raj For 1^st Respondent : Mr.V.Raghavachari Senior Counsel for Mr.P.P.Alwin Balan For 2^nd Respondent : Mr.S.Meenakshmi Sundaram Senior Counsel Mr.R.T.Arivu Kumar

¶111

(9)CRP(MD)No.331 of 2024:

¶112

Anitha R.Sivanandam Nadar : Petitioner/1^st Respondent/ 1^st Defendant Vs.

¶113

C.Kamaraj Nadar (Died)

¶114

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

¶115

9/40

¶116

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶117

1.E.Packyaraj : 1^st Respondent/Appellant/

¶118

Impleading Plaintiff

¶119

2.Tirunelveli Dakshanamara Nadar Sangam, Rep. by its Secretary,

¶120

Door No.70, Sindhupoondurai Salai Street, Tirunelveli District. : 2^nd Respondent/2^nd Respondent/ 2^nd Defendant

¶121

PRAYER: -Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 07/12/2023 in IA No. 48 of 2023 in OS No.205 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli and pass further or other orders.

¶122

For Petitioner : Mr.E.Om.Prakash

¶123

Senior Counsel for Mr.G.Adithya Raj

¶124

For 1^st Respondent : Mr.Meiyappan Mohan

¶125

For 2^nd Respondent : Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram

¶126

Senior Counsel for Mr.R.T.Arivu Kumar

¶127

(10)CRP(MD)No.332 of 2024:

¶128

Anitha R.Sivanandam Nadar : Petitioner/1^st Respondent/ 1^st Defendant

¶129

Vs.

¶130

C.Kamaraj Nadar (Died)

¶131

1.Selvakumar Nadar

¶132

2.S.Sundaraj @ Sundar Nadar

¶133

3.P.Rajasekar Nadar : Respondents 1 to 3/

¶134

Appellants/Impleading Plaintiffs 2-4

¶135

4.Tirunelveli Dakshanamara Nadar Sangam, Rep. by its Secretary, Door No.70, Sindhupoondurai Salai Street,

¶136

Tirunelveli District. : 5^th Respondent/

¶137

2^nd Respondent/

¶138

2^nd Defendant

¶139

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

¶140

10/40

¶141

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶142

PRAYER: -Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 07/12/2023 in IA No. 32 of 2023 in OS No.205 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli and pass such further or other orders.

¶143

For Petitioner : E.O.M.Prakash

¶144

Senior Counsel for Mr.G.Adithya Raj

¶145

For R1 to R3 : Mr.D.Venkatesh

¶146

For 4^th Respondent : Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram Senior Counsel for Mr.R.T.Arivu Kumar

¶147

(11)CRP(MD)No.719 of 2024:

¶148

Anitha R.Sivanandam Nadar : Petitioner/1^st Respondent/

¶149

^st Defendant

¶150

Vs.

¶151

C.Kamaraj Nadar (Died)

¶152

1.N.Selvakumar Nadar 2.S.Sundarraj @ Sundar Nadar 3.P.Rajasekar Nadar : R2 and R3/Appellants/ Impleading Plaintiffs 2-4

¶153

4.Tirunelveli Dakshanamara Nadar Sangam, Rep. by its Secretary, Door No.70, Sindhupoondurai Salai Street, Tirunelveli District. :4^th Respondent/2^nd Respondent/

¶154

2^nd Defendant

¶155

PRAYER: -Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 07/12/2023 in IA No. 34 of 2023 in IA No.2 of 2022 in OS No.205 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli and pass further or other orders.

¶156

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

¶157

11/40

¶158

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶159

For Petitioner : Mr.E.O.M.Prakash Senior Counsel for Mr.G.Adithya Raj For R1 to R3 : Mr.D.Venkatesh

¶160

For 4^th Respondent : Mr.S.Meenakshmi Sundaram

¶161

(12).CRP(MD)No.721 of 2024:-

¶162

Anitha R.Sivanandam Nadar : Petitioner/1^st Respondent/ 1^st Defendant Vs.

¶163

C.Kamaraj Nadar : Deceased Plaintiff 1.N.Selvakumar Nadar 2.S.Sundarraj @ Sundar Nadar 3.P.Rajasekar Nadar : R1 to R3/Appellants/ Impleading Plaintiffs 2-4

¶164

4.Tirunelveli Dakshanamara Nadar Sangam, Rep. by its Secretary, Door No.70, Sindhupoondurai Salai Street, Tirunelveli District. : 4^th Respondent/ 2^nd Respondent/2^nd Defendant

¶165

5.The District Registrar of Societies, (Administration), Tirunelveli Registration District, Combined Registration Department Office, Behind St. John's School, Sankar Colony, Palayamkotai.

¶166

6.Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Office of Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Near to Rani Anna College, Tirunelveli.

¶167

7.Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its District Collector, Tirunelveli District. : R5 to R7/Respondents/ Proposed Defendants

¶168

PRAYER: -Civil Revision Petition has been filed under

¶169

Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 07/12/2023 in IA No.

¶170

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

¶171

12/40

¶172

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶173

36 of 2023 in IA No.3 of 2022 in OS No.205 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli and pass further or other orders.

¶174

For Petitioner : Mr.E.O.M.Prakash Senior Counsel for Mr.G.Adithya Raj For R1 to R3 : Mr.D.Venkatesh For 4^th Respondent : Mr.S.Meenakshmi Sundaram Senior Counsel Mr.R.T.Arivu Kumar For R5 to R7 : Mr.A.Sivanu Pandian Government Advocate (Civil) (13).CRP(MD)No.723 of 2024:-

¶175

Government Advocate (Civil)

¶176

Anitha R.Sivanandam Nadar : Petitioner/1^st Respondent/ 1^st Respondent/1^st Defendant

¶177

Vs.

¶178

C.Kamaraj Nadar : Deceased Plaintiff 1.N.Selvakumar Nadar 2.S.Sundarraj @ Sundar Nadar 3.P.Rajasekar Nadar : R1 to R3/Appellants/ Impleading Plaintiffs 2-4 4.Tirunelveli Dakshanamara Nadar Sangam, Rep. by its Secretary, Door No.70, Sindhupoondurai Salai Street, Tirunelveli District. : 4^th Respondent/ 2^nd Respondent/2^nd Defendant 5.The District Registrar of Societies, (Administration), Tirunelveli Registration District, Combined Registration Department Office, Behind St. John's School, Sankar Colony, Palayamkotai. 6.Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Office of Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Near to Rani Anna College, Tirunelveli.

¶179

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

¶180

13/40

¶181

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶182

7.Government of Tamil Nadu,

¶183

Rep by its District Collector, Tirunelveli District. : R5 to R7/Respondents/ Proposed Defendants

¶184

PRAYER: -Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 07/12/2023 in IA No. 38 of 2023 in IA No.4 of 2023 in OS No.205 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli and pass further or other orders.

¶185

For Petitioner : Mr.E.O.M.Prakash Senior Counsel for Mr.G.Adithya Raj

¶186

For R1 to R3 : Mr.D.Venkatesh For 4^th Respondent : Mr.S.Meenakshmi Sundaram Senior Counsel Mr.R.T.Arivu Kumar

¶187

For R5 to R7 : Mr.A.Sivanu Pandian Government Advocate (Civil)

¶188

(14).CRP(MD)No.726 of 2024:-

¶189

Anitha R.Sivanandam Nadar : Petitioner/1^st Respondent/ 1^st Defendant Vs.

¶190

C.Kamaraj Nadar (died) : Deceased Plaintiff

¶191

1.Selvakumar Nadar 2.S.Sundaraj @ Sundar Nadar 3.P.Rajasekar Nadar : R1 to R3/Appellants/ Impleadings Plaintiffs 2-4

¶192

4.Tirunelveli Dakashanamara Nadar Sangam, Rep. by its Secretary, Door No.70, Sindhupoondurai Salai Street, Tirunelveli District : 4^th Respondent/ 2^nd Respondent/2^nd Defendant

¶193

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

¶194

14/40

¶195

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶196

5.R.K.Kalidasan Nadar

¶197

6.T.Rajakumar Nadar 7.A.Selvaraj Nadar 8.VP Ramanathan Nadar 9.SKTB Kamaraj Nadar 10.Kamaraj Nadar 11.SRS Umarisankar Nadar 12.SR Vaidyalingam Nadar 13.A.Kalyanasundaram Nadar 14.SA.Sivabalan Nadar 15.T.Arumuganainar Nadar 16.S.Sivasankar Nadar 17.SS Chandrasekar Nadar 18.S.Selvan Nadar 19.S.Nithyabalaiya Nadar 20.S.Essakimuthu @ Ashokan Nadar 21.K.Ravindran Nadar 22.P.Natesan Nadar 23.M.Thanithangam 24.A.Naynar Nadar 25.R.Brahmanand Nadar 26.S.Ramasubbu Nadar 27.S.Janakar Nadar 28.AP Sathishkumar Nadar 29.P.Selvaraj Nadar 30.R.Thangavelu Nadar 31.K.Balraj Nadar 32.SK Chellapandi Nadar 33.SK Radhakrishnan Nadar 34.AB Ramesh Nadar 35.B.Manickavasagam Nadar 36.P.Ragunathan Nadar 37.A.Ashokan Nadar 38.P.Ragavan Nadar 39.D.Soundarraj Nadar 40.S.Anbulingam Nadar 41.P.S.Kaniraj Nadar : R5 to R41/Respondents/ Proposed Defendant 3-39

¶198

PRAYER: -Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 07/12/2023 in IA No. 42 of 2023 in IA No.18 of 2022 in OS No.205 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli and pass further or other orders.

¶199

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

¶200

15/40

¶201

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶202

For Petitioner : Mr.E.O.M.Prakash Senior Counsel for Mr.G.Adithya Raj For R1 to R3 : Mr.D.Venkatesh

¶203

For 4^th Respondent : Mr.S.Meenakshmi Sundaram

¶204

(15).CRP(MD)No.728 of 2024:-

¶205

Anitha R.Sivanandam Nadar : Petitioner/1^st Respondent/ 1^st Defendant Vs.

¶206

C.Kamaraj Nadar (died) : Deceased Plaintiff

¶207

1.Selvakumar Nadar 2.S.Sundaraj @ Sundar Nadar 3.P.Rajasekar Nadar : R1 to R3/Appellants/ Impleadings Plaintiffs 2-4

¶208

4.Tirunelveli Dakashanamara Nadar Sangam, Rep. by its Secretary, Door No.70, Sindhupoondurai Salai Street, Tirunelveli District : 4^th Respondent/

¶209

^nd Respondent/2^nd Defendant

¶210

PRAYER: -Civil Revision Petition has been filed under

¶211

Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 07/12/2023 in IA No. 44 of 2023 in IA No.19 of 2023 in OS No.205 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli and pass further or other orders.

¶212

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

¶213

16/40

¶214

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶215

For Petitioner : Mr.E.O.M.Prakash

¶216

Senior Counsel

¶217

for Mr.G.Adithya Raj

¶218

For R1 to R3 : Mr.D.Venkatesh

¶219

For 4^th Respondent : Mr.S.Meenakshmi Sundaram Senior Counsel

¶220

16.CRP(MD)No.731 of 2024:-

¶221

Anitha R.Sivanandam Nadar : Petitioner/1^st Respondent/ 1^st Defendant Vs.

¶222

C.Kamaraj Nadar (died) : Deceased Plaintiff 1.Selvakumar Nadar 2.S.Sundaraj @ Sundar Nadar 3.P.Rajasekar Nadar : R1 to R3/Appellants/

¶223

Impleadings Plaintiffs 2-4

¶224

4.Tirunelveli Dakashanamara Nadar Sangam, Rep. by its Secretary, Door No.70, Sindhupoondurai Salai Street, Tirunelveli District : 4^th Respondent/

¶225

^nd Respondent/2^nd Defendant

¶226

PRAYER: -Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 07/12/2023 in IA No. 44 of 2023 in IA No.19 of 2023 in OS No.205 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli and pass further or other orders.

¶227

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

¶228

17/40

¶229

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶230

For Petitioner : Mr.E.O.M.Prakash Senior Counsel for Mr.G.Adithya Raj For R1 to R3 : Mr.D.Venkatesh

¶231

For 4^th Respondent : Mr.S.Meenakshmi Sundaram Senior Counsel Mr.R.T.Arivu Kumar

¶232

COMMON ORDER

¶233

These civil revision petitions have been filed seeking an order to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 07/12/2023 passed by the Principal SubCourt, Tirunelveli, as mentioned in the prayer portion.

¶234

2. The facts in brief :-

¶235

Suit in OS No.205 of 2022 was filed by the deceased

¶236

Kamaraj Nadar seeking the relief of declaration that the election held on 04/05/2022 in the special general body meeting is not legal; and for consequential various prayers. Pending the suit, Kamaraj Nadar expired on 20/09/2023 and in his place, his wife namely K.Usha filed applications to add herself as 5^th plaintiff. Similarly, some of the members of the Sangam filed applications to

¶237

add themselves as plaintiffs 2 to 4. All the applications were filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC and section 151 CPC. By That came to be allowed by the trial court, by order, dated 07/12/2023.

¶238

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

¶239

18/40

¶240

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶241

3.Against which, the 1^st defendant is before this

¶242

court by filing these civil revision petitions.

¶243

4.Heard both sides.

¶244

5.Since, common question of law and facts arise in all the matters, heard together and this common order is passed.

¶245

6.The facts are not disputed. The deceased Kamaraj Nadar is one of the members of the Sangam namely Tirunelveli Dakshanamara Nadar Sangam. He died on 20/09/2023. It is also not in dispute that K.Usha, who is the wife of Kamaraj Nadar is also one of the members. Similarly, the other persons, who are impleaded themselves as parties are also members of the Sangam. It is not in dispute that Kamaraj Nadar challenged the general body election that was held on 04/05/2022.

¶246

7.Now a simple point, which arises for consideration

¶247

is whether the cause of action survives to the surviving party namely K.Usha, the wife of the deceased Kamaraj Nadar.

¶248

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

¶249

19/40

¶250

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶251

8.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it is a personal right, which Kamaraj Nadar wanted to vindicate; The personal

¶252

right of Kamaraj Nadar died with him. According to him, doctrine of actio personalis moritur cum persona clearly applies to the facts and circumstances of the case; At no stretch of imagination, Smt.K.Usha can be brought on record as the legal heir of the deceased Kamaraj Nadar and if Usha got any independent right, she can very well file a separate suit and certainly, she is not entitled to continue the suit left by her deceased husband. For which, he would rely upon number of judgments. We will refer to the judgments at the later portion of the order.

¶253

9.Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Sangam Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram would submit that they have no objection to bring on record K.Usha as a party to the litigation, because, she is also one of the members. If Smt.K.Usha to file a separate suit, then it will amount to multiplicity of proceedings.

¶254

10.He would further submit that the trial court is

¶255

not permitted by the parties to take up the trial. At each and every stage block is made. The parties are taking up the matter over on a simple issue upto the

¶256

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

¶257

20/40

¶258

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶259

Hon'ble Supreme Court. Because of the attitude of the parties, namely, the members of the Sangam, the trial could not be taken up. So, according to him, no purpose is going to be served by directing K.Usha to file a separate suit. Being, a member of the Sangam, she is entitled to maintain and continue the suit.

¶260

11.To that effect, the learned Senior Counsel

¶261

appearing for K.Usha would submit that the scope of revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited. Unless, this Court finds that the trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction or did not exercise the jurisdiction, which is vested on it or it is completely illegal, no interference is called for. He would also referring to the judgment defining the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. We will refer it in the later portion of the judgment.

¶262

12.Even at the time of hearing the argument, the

¶263

learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the cause of action for the suit dies with the death of the Kamaraj Nadar.

¶264

13.I wanted to clarify one thing with him that it is not a personal right of Kamaraj Nadar, but he wanted to

¶265

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

¶266

21/40

¶267

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶268

vindicate a common cause for all the members of the Sangam, who intended to challenge the general body meeting and its election; When that is being so, what sort of valid objection can be raised by them.

¶269

14.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent Smt.K.Usha would submit that the petitions were not filed under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC. Petitions have been carefully filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2)CPC. According to him, independent of the right, that was available to her husband namely Kamaraj Nadar, she has filed a petition to implead herself as plaintiff on her own right as one of the members of the Sangam. So, no valid objection can be made by the revision petitioner herein. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that many of the members of the Sangam have also been brought on record as party defendants. This causes trouble in taking the matter for trial.

¶270

15.Now whatever it may be, a short point, which arises for consideration is whether the right of K.Usha to continue the suit can be taken away by driving her to file a separate suit.

¶271

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

¶272

22/40

¶273

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶274

16.The powers of the High Court to interfere into the orders of the Tribunal or the trial court has been stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil [(2010)8 SCC 329] . Para 66 and 67 requires extraction:-

¶275

“66.We may also observe that in

¶276

some High Courts there is a tendency of entertaining petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by terming them as writ petitions. This is sought to be justified on an erroneous appreciation of the ratio in Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai [(2003)6 SCC 675] and in view of the recent amendment to Section 115 of the Civil

¶277

Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999. It is urged

¶278

that as a result of the amendment, scope of Section 115 CPC has been curtailed. In our view, even if the scope of Section 115 CPC is curtailed that has not resulted in expanding the

¶279

High Court's power of superintendence. It is too well known to be reiterated

¶280

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

¶281

23/40

¶282

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶283

that in exercising its jurisdiction, High Court must follow the regime of law.

¶284

67.As a result of frequent interference by the Hon'ble High Court either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of with pending civil and at times criminal cases, the disposal of cases by the civil and criminal courts gets further impeded and thus causing serious problems in the administration of justice. This Court hopes ad trusts that in exercising its power either under Article 226 or 227, the Hon'ble High Court will follow the time honoured principles discussed above. Those principles have been formulated by this Court for ends of justice and the High Courts as the highest courts of justice within their jurisdiction will adhere to them strictly.”

¶285

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

¶286

24/40

¶287

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶288

17.So, whether the revision fit into any of the parameters as set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is the point to be answered by this court.

¶289

18.The parameters set out in para 49 of the above

¶290

said judgment would run like thus:-

¶291

“49.On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be formulated:

¶292

the Constitution is different from a petition under Article 227. The mode of exercise of power by High Court under these two Articles is also different.

¶293

(b)In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called a writ petition. The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is substantially different from the history of conferment of the power of Superintendence on the High Courts under Article 227 and have been discussed above.

¶294

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

¶295

25/40

¶296

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶297

(c)High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a Court of appeal over the orders of Court or tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also operate as a restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Court.

¶298

(d)The parameters of interference by High Courts in exercise of its power of superintendence have been repeatedly laid down by this Court. In this regard the High Court must be guided by the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Waryam Singh (supra) and the principles in Waryam Singh (supra) have been repeatedly followed by subsequent Constitution Benches and various other decisions of this Court.

¶299

(e)According to the ratio

¶300

in Waryam Singh (supra), followed in subsequent cases, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere in order

¶301

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

¶302

26/40

¶303

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶304

only to keep the tribunals and Courts subordinate to it, `within the bounds of their authority'.

¶305

(f)In order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and Courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them.

¶306

(g)Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f), High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.

¶307

(h)In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised.

¶308

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

¶309

27/40

¶310

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶311

(i)High Court's power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be curtailed by any statute. It has been declared a part of the basic structure of the Constitution by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & others, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 and therefore abridgement by a Constitutional amendment is also very doubtful.

¶312

(j)It may be true that a statutory amendment of a rather cognate provision, like Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 does not and cannot cut down the ambit of High Court's power under Article 227. At the same time, it must be remembered that such statutory amendment does not correspondingly expand the High Court's jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227.

¶313

(k)The power is discretionary and has to be exercised on equitable principle. In an appropriate case, the power can be exercised suo motu.

¶314

(l)On a proper appreciation of the wide and unfettered power of the High

¶315

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

¶316

28/40

¶317

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶318

Court under Article 227, it transpires that the main object of this Article is to keep strict administrative and judicial control by the High Court on the administration of justice within its territory.

¶319

(m)The object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under this Article is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court.

¶320

(n)This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but should be directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice in the larger public interest whereas Article 226 is meant for protection of individual grievance. Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise

¶321

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

¶322

29/40

¶323

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶324

is subject to high degree of judicial discipline pointed out above.

¶325

(o)An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counterproductive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality.”

¶326

19.Now, according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for K.Usha, these parameters are not satisfied by the petitioner. If this court comes to the conclusion that the trial court exercised the jurisdiction illegally or against the order, then this court can interfere.

¶327

20.Now, we will go to the judgment cited by the petitioner in Vinayak Purshottam Dube (Deceased), Through

¶328

Lrs Vs. Jayashree Padamkar Bhat and Others (2024 SCC

¶329

OnLine SC 212) on this aspect. Para 24 is relevant for extraction:-

¶330

“24.Salmond also believed that no

¶331

right can exist without a corresponding duty. Every right or duty involves a

¶332

bond of legal obligation by which two

¶333

or more persons are bound together. Thus, there can be no right unless there is someone to whom it is due; there can be no right unless there is

¶334

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

¶335

30/40

¶336

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶337

someone from whom it is claimed; and there can be no wrong unless there is someone who is wronged, that is to say, someone whose right has been violated. This is also called as vinculum juris which means “a bond of the law”. It is a tie that legally binds one person to another. [ Source : PJ Fitzgerald, Salmond on Jurisprudence, Page No.220

¶338

(Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvtl Ltd., 12^th Edition, 1966].”

¶339

21.By referring to this para, the learned Senior

¶340

Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that Kamaraj Nadar has stated that he has been wronged and his right has been violated. So, the right to sue died with him.

¶341

22.Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Sangam would submit that when Kamaraj Nadar died, the suit cannot be abandoned abruptly, Drawing attention of this court, para 30 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (Died) by Lrs

¶342

and others Vs. Pramod Gupta (SMT) (DEA) by Lrs. And others [(2003)3 SCC 272] , which would run thus:

¶343

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

¶344

31/40

¶345

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶346

“30.The question, therefore, as to

¶347

when a proceeding before the court becomes or is rendered impossible or possible to be proceeded with, after it had partially abated on account of the death of one or the other party on either side has been always considered to depend upon the fact as to whether the decree obtained is a joint decree or a severable one and that in case of a joint and inseverable decree if the appeal abated against one or the other, the same cannot be proceeded with further for or against the remaining parties a well. If otherwise, the decree is a joint and several or separable one, being in substance and reality a combination of many decrees, there can be no impediment for the proceedings being proceeded with among

¶348

or against those remaining parties other than the deceased. As observed

¶349

in Nathu Ram case (AIR 1962 SC 89 : (1962)2 SCR 636) itself, the Code does not itself provide for the abatement of

¶350

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

¶351

32/40

¶352

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶353

the appeal against the other

¶354

respondents even where, as against one such it has abated but it is only the courts which have held that in certain circumstances the appeal also would abate against a co-respondent as a result of abatement against the deceased respondent. The same would be the position of an appeal vis-a-vis the appellants, as in the order cases. Order 22 Rule 4 also considered not to provide for abatement of the appeal(s) against the co-respondents of the deceased respondent and it was specifically observed therein that to say that the appeal against them also abated in certain circumstances is not a correct statement. It was held that

¶355

the appeals against such other respondents cannot be proceeded against and, therefore, had to be dismissed, in certain circumstances.”

¶356

23.So, one of the counsel appearing for the respondents namely D.venkatash by relying upon the

¶357

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

¶358

33/40

¶359

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶360

judgment of this court in Devaki ThiyagarajanVs. Ahamed

¶361

and others (O.S.A No.178 of 2014, dated 13/07/2015) , would draw the attention of this court to para 62 and 63, which would run thus:-

¶362

10(2) C.P.C to implead a third party to the suit is that the dispute in the

¶363

suit would be resolved in the presence of all, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

¶364

party would become necessary party or

¶365

proper party if he is having any interest over the subject matter of

¶366

adjudication under the suit and the he can be impleaded.”

¶367

24.Further by relying upon the judgment in Banwari

¶368

Lal (Dead) by legal representatives and another Vs.

¶369

Balbir Singh [(2016)1 SCC 607] , he would draw the

¶370

attention of this court in para No.10, which would runs like this;-

¶371

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

¶372

34/40

¶373

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶374

“10.In Sital Prasad Saxena V. Union

¶375

of India (1985)1 SCC 163, it was observed that the rules of procedure under Order 22 CPC are designed to advance justice and should be so interpreted as not to make them penal statues for punishing erring parties. On sufficient cause, delay in bring the legal representatives of the deceased party on record should be condoned. Procedure is meant only to facilitate the administration of justice and not to defeat the same. The dismissal of the second appeal by the High Court does not constitute a sound and reasonable exercise of its powers and the impugned order cannot be sustained.”

¶376

25.Further he would rely upon the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in P.S.Kaniraj Vs. S.Dhanaraj Nadar (Tr.CMP(MD)No.276 of 2023, dated 13/06/2023, which was filed to transfer OS No.342 of 2021 to the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Tirunelveli, for simultaneous disposal along with OS No.205 of 2022, which is the subject matter now.

¶377

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

¶378

35/40

¶379

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶380

26.Perusal of the judgments cited on either side, now the point is narrowed down a single point.

¶381

27.In this context, now we will see the prayer portion of the plaint.

¶382

28.The prayer sought for by the deceased Kamaraj Nadar is that the special general body meeting and the election held on 04/05/2022 is null and void.

¶383

29.As mentioned above, I find that it is nothing, but a common cause, which is available to all the members to challenge the same, if they so aggrieved.

¶384

30.No doubt that no proper application was filed,

¶385

either by K.Usha or any other persons under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC seeking permission of this court to represent the aggrieved persons of the Sangam to continue the suit or to defend the suit, as the case may be. That will not affect the right of Usha to continue the suit. When K.Usha wanted to continue the suit for the benefit of the aggrieved persons or members of the Sangam, I am of the considered view that in this case, it is not the personal cause of K.Usha. So the petitioner's stand is not correct.

¶386

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

¶387

36/40

¶388

C.R.P.(MD)No.331 to 333, 719 to 731 of 2024

¶389

31.No doubt that Kamaraj Nadar wanted to vindicate his right as one of the members. But his wife namely K.Usha wanted to implead herself as one of the plaintiffs, as the case may be, to continue the suit to see that the matter is to be decided once for all in the presence of all the parties and that too in the interest of the Sangam and its members. I find that for the common cause, K.Usha wanted to explore, it must be permitted to be carried on in its logical conclusion. Absolutely, there is no bar under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC to continue the suit by K.Usha. So, The order passed by the trial court does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity or exceeding the jurisdiction vested on it. So, the contention raised by the petitioner that K.Usha has not been continued to prosecute the suit itself is not acceptable.

¶390

32.The above discussion made in respect of K.Usha

¶391

squarely applies to the other proposed parties also namely E.Packyaraj, Selvakumar Nadar, S.Sundarraj @ Sundar Nadar and P.Rajasekar Nadar.

¶392

33.Since those persons filed impleading petitions

¶393

under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC, the discussion made in respect of K.Usha stands as stated above, apply to the

¶394

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

¶395

37/40