Allowed¶23

Mrs.P.Manjula v. S.Pappa Bai and 7 others

Madras HC10 Jul 2025A/2998/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, K.Kumares Babu J., A.No.2998 of 2025 in C.S.No.416 of 2018, order dated 10-07-2025: amendment of plaint allowed — Item No.4 struck out from property schedule; suit property (building with co-owners at Montieth Road/Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai) permitted to be redeveloped pursuant to owners' joint decision; redevelopment held beneficial to all parties to the title suit; no statute or precedent discussed; no costs or quantum awarded.

What did the court decide?

Application in A.No.2998 of 2025 in C.S.No.416 of 2018 stands disposed of, permitting the property to be the subject matter of redevelopment (amendment to strike out Item No.4 from the schedule effectively permitted). ¶23

Mrs.P.Manjula Vs S.Pappa Bai and 7 others — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

A NO. 2998 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-07-2025

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶4

A.No.2998 of 2025

¶5

¶6

C.S.No.416 of 2018

¶7

Mrs.P.Manjula W/o N.Prakash Rao, No.24, Montieth Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008

¶8

Applicant(s)

¶9

¶10

S.Pappa Bai and 7 others W/o Late Thiru S.B.Lakshman Rao, No.24, Montieth Road, Egmore, Chennai 8 L.SHIVAJI RAO (DECEASED) S/o Late S.B.Lakshmana Rao, 1st Floor, Kubers Building, No.42, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai 8 and 7 Others

¶11

Respondent(s)

¶12

For Applicant(s):

¶13

Mr.Krishna Ravindran Mr.T.Saikrishnan (For R1 & R2, R5 to R8) Mr.VM.Ravichandran (For R3 & R4)

¶14

For Respondent(s):

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The present application has been filed to allow the applicant to amend

¶18

the plaint by striking out Item No.4 from the schedule of properties.

¶19

The plaintiff and the fifth defendant have claimed a right to the property in their individual capacity. The other defendants seek a share in the property. What has been sought for by the applicant is that the suit property forms part of a building in which there are other owners, and the owners have jointly decided to redevelop the property. It is the claim of the applicant that if such redevelopment is permitted, the extent of the building would be beneficial to whoever succeeds in the suit.

¶20

This Court is of the view that, if the same is permitted to be redeveloped, it will only be in the best interest of the parties, as they would all benefit either way. In such circumstances, I find no impediment in ordering the prayer as sought in this application.

¶21

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

¶22

In fine, the application in A.No.2998 of 2025 in C.S.No.416 of 2018

¶23

stands disposed of, permitting the property to be the subject matter of redevelopment.

10-07-2025

(2/3)

kak

1. S.Pappa Bai and 7 others

¶29

W/o Late Thiru S.B.Lakshman Rao, No.24, Montieth Road, Egmore, Chennai 8 L.SHIVAJI RAO (DECEASED) S/o Late S.B.Lakshmana Rao, 1st Floor, Kubers Building, No.42, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai 8

¶30

2. L.Narayana Rao

¶31

S/o Late Thiru S.B.Lakshman Rao, Penthouse Flat 4th Floor, S.B.Lakshman Rao (Kubers) Building, No.28, Montieth Road, Egmore, Chennai 8

¶32