Mathialagan v. v.Kanimozhi and another

Madras HC13 Nov 2025A/5518/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Joinder of cause of action; Order II Rule 3 CPC; Order XIV Rule 8 Original Side Rules; composite / single continuous transaction; unregistered mortgage deeds dated 17.05.2023 and 04.10.2023; promissory note dated 25.09.2024; joint loan of Rs.1,20,00,000; redemption of joint mortgage with REPCO Bank; money recovery suit against husband and wife; common questions of fact and law; Madras High Court; leave application allowed; Registry directed to number suit.

What did the court decide?

Leave for joinder of cause of action granted; Registry directed to number the Suit, if it is otherwise in order. ¶¶28

Mathialagan Vs v.Kanimozhi and another — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

A. No.5518 of 2025

¶2

in C.S. DR No.137375 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED : 13.11.2025

¶5

CORAM :

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

¶7

A NO. 5518 of 2025 in C.S. DR No.137375 of 2025

¶8

Mathialagan S/o Muniandy

¶9

Applicant / Plaintiff

¶10

¶11

Kanimozhi.V W/o. Veerakumar

¶12

Veerakumar K S/o. Kalitheavar Respondent(s)

¶13

For Applicant(s) : Ms. J. Madhumitha

¶14

PRAYER: Application filed under Order XIV, Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order II Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code pryaing to grant leave for

¶15

joinder of cause of action in the present Suit.

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This application has been filed by the applicant to grant leave for joinder of cause of action in the present Suit.

¶18

According to the applicant, he is the Plaintiff in the main Suit and

¶19

he filed the Suit for recovery of money as against the defendants. The defendants are husband and wife and they received money under unregistered Mortgage Deeds dated 17.05.2023 aned 04.10.2023 executed by both the Page No.1 of 4

¶20

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

¶21

A. No.5518 of 2025

¶22

in C.S. DR No.137375 of 2025 defendants and also they executed Promissory Note dated 25.09.2024. Though the transactions were evidenced by two distinct instruments, they were part of one composite financial arrangement, forming a single continuous transaction and common understanding between the Plaintiff and both defendants. Both defendants had jointly approached the Plaintiff for financial assistance represented their common indebtedness and sought a combined loan of Rs.1,20,00,000/- to redeem their joint mortgage with REPCO Bank. Pursuant to such joint representation, the Plaintiff advanced the amounts to the defendants on their joint assurance and both defendants acted in concert, jointly promising repayment of said loan of Rs.1,20,00,000/Therefore, cause of action arose out of same transaction and from very same series of acts and transactions. Therefore, he filed this application.

¶23

This Court heard applicant's side and perused the materials available on record.

¶24

As per the Plaint averments, both the parties jointly approached the Plainitff for financial assistance and on common understanding, sought for

¶25

Page No.2 of 4

¶26

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

¶27

A. No.5518 of 2025 in C.S. DR No.137375 of 2025 joint loan of Rs.1,20,00,000/- and they also executed deeds separately and also executed Promissory note. Therefore, considering the above said reasons and facts and circumstances of the case and cause of action arose out of the same transaction so connected together as to form the same series of acts and transactions and involves common questions of fact and law, it is appropriate to allow this application.

¶28