Partly allowed

T. Rajamanickam v. Vimala

Madras HC30 Jul 2024TR CMP/543/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a transfer petition regarding a partition suit pending in Thiruvarur. Addressing claims of delay and interference, the court transferred the suit to Mayiladuthuai for speedy disposal within three months, noting respondent agreement.

What did the court decide?

The suit O.S.No.38 of 2019 was transferred from Principal District Court, Thiruvarur to Mayiladuthurai to be disposed of within three months.

T. Rajamanickam Vs Vimala — Partition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Tr.C.M.P.No.543 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 30.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

Tr.C.M.P.No.543 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.12009 of 2024 T.Rajamanickam ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.Vimala 2.T.Balasubramanian ... Respondents PRAYER: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of

¶9

the Code of Civil Procedure, to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.38 of 2019 pending on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur and transfer the same to the file of the Additional District Court, Kumbakonam.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkatramani, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Srinivasan For R1 : Mr.S.Balasubramanian For R2 : No Appearance

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Page No.1 of 10

¶13

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

¶14

Tr.C.M.P.No.543 of 2024

¶15

This transfer civil miscellaneous petition has been filed to transfer the suit in O.S.No.38 of 2019 from the file of the Principal District Court, Thiruvarur to the file of the Additional District Court, Kumbakonam.

¶16

2.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/plaintiff filed suit for partition against his elder sister and elder brother, the respondents herein. The father and mother of the petitioner named Thangarajan and Dhanalakshmi inherited and purchased properties and also invested money in share market. The petitioner's father worked in Defence, thereafter in the Postal Department. The entire properties were purchased by the petitioner's father on his own money. The petitioner's mother passed away on 04.07.2010 and his father passed away on 01.03.2017 leaving behind the petitioner and the respondents as the surviving legal heirs. All were enjoying undivided joint family properties and thereafter to make partition among themselves, the petitioner sought 1/3^rd share over the entire properties, for which, the suit filed. He further submitted that the respondents/defendants entered appearance through their Counsel, filed written statement during February 2021 and additional written statement on 19.12.2022. No reply statement filed by the petitioner. Page No.2 of 10

¶17

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

¶18

Tr.C.M.P.No.543 of 2024

¶19

Thereafter, pleadings completed and the suit is ready for trial. When the suit is pending, the respondents cut down valuable trees in the family property and also caused damage to the house. Further, the door, windows, valuable articles and jewels were taken away. When the same was questioned by the petitioner, he and his family members threatened by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner lodged a Police Station to Thiruvarur Taluk Police Station on 07.02.2021. The petitioner was assaulted and got admitted in Thiruvarur Government Hospital. After his discharge, enquiry conducted by the Police. During enquiry, the respondents appeared and gave undertaking that the issue would be resolved between them. Despite the same, threat to the petitioner continued.

¶20

3.He further submitted that earlier, the suit referred to Lok adalat on the guise of settlement but ultimately it was only to gain time denying the petitioner's rightful 1/3^rd share in the family property. From 27.06.2023 to 22.04.2024, for almost a year, the suit pending in Lok adalat. Now the suit is posted for cross examination of plaintiff/PW1 but it is periodically adjourned without any progress. He further submitted that the 2^nd respondent's son named Karthik @ Inbasagan is employed as Advocate Page No.3 of 10

¶21

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

¶22

Tr.C.M.P.No.543 of 2024

¶23

Clerk in the 2^nd respondent's Advocate office. Because of his acquittance and familiarity, he ensures the suit does not progress. Further, the said Karthik @ Inbasagan influenced the petitioner's Advocate and other Advocates and pressurized them from keeping away from the petitioner's suit. For this reason, the petitioner is unable to proceed with the case in Thiruvarur Court. His Counsel though a senior person, returned back the vakalat informing that he cannot further represent the petitioner and prosecute the suit. The petitioner now settled in Vellore and he is travelling all the away to from Vellore to Thiruvarur to conduct the case, but for the above said reasons, the suit is put in cold storage. In view of the same, the learned Senior Counsel sought for transfer of the suit from the file of the Principal District Court, Thiruvarur to the file of the Additional District Court, Kumbakonam. The distance between Thiruvarur and Kumbamokan is only 35 kms, it will not be difficult for the respondents to appear before Kumbakonam Court.

¶24

4.He further submitted that the 1^st respondent is residing at Mayiladuthurai in any event she has to travel to Thiruvarur. Hence, prayed for transfer and also a direction to dispose of the suit within the stipulated time. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel produced Page No.4 of 10

¶25

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

¶26

Tr.C.M.P.No.543 of 2024

¶27

the photographs showing damage caused to the property and trees cut, Police complaint and undertaking given by the respondents and e-Court proceedings.

¶28

5.The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent filed counter affidavit stating that she has no objection to transfer the suit and ready to contest the suit before Kumbakonam Court. The 1^st respondent's request is that the suit to be completed within a stipulated period so that the family property can be used by the family.

¶29

6.The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent produced adjudication of the suit and filed counter affidavit denying the allegations and submitted that the petitioner had joint account along with his father in State Bank of India, Thiruvarur Branch. The share dividends credited to the account nearly around Rs.4 crores transacted but not shared with the respondents. It is the petitioner who swindled the entire amount. The petitioner wantonly omitted few properties situated in survey Nos.109/2 and 109/2D at Aanai Vadapathi Village, Thandalai, Thiruvarur Taluk. Since the property situated at Thiruvarur, the suit filed in Thiruvarur Court. Now the petitioner is living in Page No.5 of 10

¶30

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

¶31

Tr.C.M.P.No.543 of 2024

¶32

Vellore. Finding difficult to travel Thiruvarur, the petitioner filed the present transfer petition with false allegations as though the 2^nd respondent's son who is an Advocate Clerk, is the reason for stalling the progress of the trial. The counsel representing the petitioner before the Lower Court is a senior person who had more than forty five years of Bar experience. The present Advocate, who filed change of vakalat is also an elderly person with similar experience in Bar. Added to it, unwanted scandalous allegations made against the 2^nd respondent's counsel and 2^nd respondent's son. The reason for seeking transfer of the case from Thiruvarur to Kumbakonam is that the petitioner's wife is a native of Kumbakonam, his brother-in-law, sister-in-law and other relatives are residing at Kumbakonam and they have money and muscle power to exert pressure on the 2^nd respondent. Hence, the petitioner seeks transfer of the suit. The Principal District Court at Thiruvarur has got territorial jurisdiction to deal with execution of decree. Hence, he opposed transfer of the suit, but willing for speedy disposal.

¶33

7.Considering the submissions and on perusal of the materials and

¶34

also from the e-Court proceedings, it is seen that after appearance of the parties, initially the suit referred to Lok adalat during the year 2020, Page No.6 of 10

¶35

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

¶36

Tr.C.M.P.No.543 of 2024

¶37

thereafter it has been posted for exparte evidence in the year 2021 and later for framing of issues and thereafter for trial from 08.06.2021 to 16.11.2021. Again the suit referred to Lok adalat between 29.11.2021 and 08.01.2022. Thus, the suit shuttled between the Court for recording evidence and any settlement before Lok adalat. In this case, pleadings completed, the petitioner's proof affidavit filed and the case is pending for cross examination by the defendants. The 1^st respondent has no objection for transfer of the suit.

¶38

8.It is also seen that the 2^nd respondent's son is an Advocate Clerk attached to a Senior Member of Thiruvarur Bar who is the counsel for 2^nd respondent in the suit. It is to be noted that the petitioner's counsel had given change of vakalat. In view of the same, the petitioner's apprehension cannot be ignored. The only apprehension of the 2^nd respondent is that the Court at Thiruvarur has got territorial jurisdiction to deal with execution of the decree. The execution of decree can be transmitted to the concerned Court even after pronouncement of preliminary decree and final decree.

¶39

9.In view of the above, this Court withdraws O.S.No.38 of 2019 from Page No.7 of 10

¶40

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

¶41

Tr.C.M.P.No.543 of 2024

¶42

the file of the Principal District Court, Thiruvarur and transfers the same to the file of the concerned Court at Mayiladuthurai which is not far away for the respondents to attend the Court. The learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur is directed to send the entire case bundles in O.S.No.38 of 2019 to the file of the concerned Competent Court at Mayiladuthurai forthwith. On receipt of the bundles, the concerned Judge at Mayiladuthurai is directed to complete the trial and pronounce judgment within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the case bundle.

¶43

10.In the result, this transfer civil miscellaneous petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶44

30.07.2024

¶45

Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶46

Page No.8 of 10

¶47

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

¶48

Tr.C.M.P.No.543 of 2024

¶49

vv2

¶50

¶51

The Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur.

¶52

Page No.9 of 10

¶53

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

¶54

Tr.C.M.P.No.543 of 2024

¶55

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

¶56

vv2

¶57

Tr.C.M.P.No.543 of 2024

¶58

30.07.2024

¶59

Page No.10 of 10

¶60

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

T. Rajamanickam v. Vimala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Rajamanickam v. Vimala

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

G.Namgiri Lakshmi Vs v.Gowtham Gupta

Indhumathi Vs Suresh

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Vs Phoolvathi Dharambir Aggarwal (Died)

Sujatha Vs Sujatha

Mangalakshmi (Died), a.Loganathan (Died), 1.P.SUNDARI Vs Ravi

Vaishnavi Vs D.Vijayakumar