Allowed

V.Thiagarajan, v. K.Paramasivam

Madras HC15 Dec 2025CMP/28266/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed by the appellant seeking to implead proposed respondents 15 to 18 as further respondents in an appeal for specific performance. The court allowed the petition, directing the registry to amend the cause title, noting that while notice was served, the proposed respondents must file vakalat and engage counsel.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to implead proposed respondents 15 to 18 as further respondents in A.S.No.153 of 2014.

V.Thiagarajan, Vs K.Paramasivam — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

CMP No. 28266 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15-12-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

CMP No. 28266 of 2025 in

¶7

A.S.No.153 of 2014

¶8

V.Thiagarajan, S/o.Valliappa Chettiar, 4/14, Reddypatti Main Road, Mamangam, Salem -636 302.

¶9

Appellant(s)

¶10

¶11

K. Paramasivam S/o Kandasamy 3/165, Kandakulamanicka Village And Post, Sankari Taluk, Salem District.

¶12

2.P. Bhuvaneswari

¶13

W/o K. Paramasivam 3/165, Kandakulamanicka Villagle And Post, Sankar Taluk, Salem District

¶14

3.R. Manickam

¶15

S/o Late Rangasamy Kandarkulamanicka Village And Post Sankari Taluk, Salem District.

¶16

4.B. Balasubramaniam

¶17

S/o Late Rangasamy

¶18

Kandarkulamanicka Village And Post, Sankari Taluk, Salem District.

¶19

P. Jayakumar (died)

¶20

S/o K. Paramasivam 9, Vasantha Main Road Singanallur Post, Coimbatore Taluk And District.

¶21

1/10

¶22

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

¶23

CMP No. 28266 of 2025

¶24

5.P. Geetha D/o K. Paramasivam 3/165, Kandakulamanicka Village Land Post, Sankari Taluk, Salem District.

¶25

6.T.K.N. Masilamani

¶26

S/o T.K. Natesa Mudaliar Maniyakkarar Thottam Attayampatti Village Salem Taluk And District.

¶27

7.G. Venkatesan

¶28

S/o Lgurusamy 49, A. Kongu Nagar, Gulon Thoppu Karungalpalayam Erode -3.

¶29

8.M. Maragathavalli

¶30

S/o T.K.N. Masilamani Maniyakkarar Thottam, Attyampatti Village, Salem Taluk And District.

¶31

9.P. Sivalingam

¶32

S/o Periyanna Gounder, Vaniyambadi Village, Salem Taluk And District.

¶33

10.K. Sakthivel

¶34

S/o Kandasamy Gounder, 4/156 Bangalow Thottam Uthamasolapuram Salem -10

¶35

11.R. Ramesh

¶36

S/o Ramachandran No. 11, Mgr Nagar Seelanaickanpatti Salem 636 201

¶37

12.A, Sakhivel

¶38

S/o Arthanari Gounder Punchalkkadu Poolavari Agraharam Salem Taluk And District.

¶39

13.Mrs.Priya, W/o.Late Jayakumar 9, Vasantha Main Road Singanallur Post, Coimbatore Taluk And District.

¶40

14.Master Sachin,(16 Years), S/o.Late Jayakumar

¶41

2/10

¶42

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

¶43

CMP No. 28266 of 2025

¶44

Represented By Natural Guardian Mother (13^th Respondent) 9, Vasantha Main Road Singanallur Post, Coimbatore Taluk And District.

¶45

15.M/s.Annapoorani Shanmugasundram Construction (P) Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director, NH 47, Sankari Main Road, Ariyanoor, Salem – 636 308.

¶46

16.V.Nihal Chand, S/o.Vijayaraj

¶47

17.V.Dhinesh Kumar, S/o.Vijayaraj

¶48

Both respondents No.17 and 18 are residing at No.71/25, Sankar Nagar, Salem – 7.

¶49

18.M/s.Mahalakshmi Media (P) Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director, Old No.194, New No.216, Rayapettah, Bharathi Salai, Chennai – 600 014.

¶50

Respondent(s)

¶51

Prayer:

¶52

To implead respondent Nos.15 to 18, in the present petition as proposed respondents in A.S.No.153 of 2014 and pass such further other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶53

3/10

¶54

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

¶55

CMP No. 28266 of 2025

¶56

For Appellant(s):	Mr.R.Parthasarathy Senior Counsel
	For Mr.Rahul Balaji
For Respondent(s):	Mr.R.Nalliappan (For R12) ORDER

¶57

(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan J.)

¶58

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the appellant, seeking to implead respondent Nos.15,16,17 and 18 as further respondents in the appeal.

¶59

In the affidavit filed, it has been stated that the entire appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance, which had been partly decreed with respect to the shares of the 1^st and 2^nd defendants and also the deceased brother of the first defendant. But however, insofar as the Legal Representatives are concerned, it was held by the trial Court that there was no necessity to enter into an agreement of sale on their behalf and to that extent, the suit was dismissed. Questioning those observations, the present appeal has been filed, seeking specific performance of the entire property covered under the agreement.

¶60

Even when the suit was filed, the defendants/owners of the properties were categorized as defendants 1 to 6. Defendants 7, 8 and 9 have been impleaded only because they had advanced money to the defendants 1 to 6.

¶61

4/10

¶62

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

¶63

CMP No. 28266 of 2025

¶64

It is contended by the learned Senior counsel that the plaintiff later

¶65

came to know that they have also obtained a decree and attachment over the suit properties and therefore, though they may not be necessary parties, they were proper parties to be present when any adjudication is made on the agreement of sale.

¶66

At that stage, defendants 10 to 13 had been impleaded, as they had purchased the properties in spite of the agreement in favour of the appellant herein/plaintiff in the suit.

¶67

It is now contended that the said defendants 10 to 13 had made further encumbrance over the suit property in favour of the proposed respondents herein namely respondents 15 to 18. It is contended that since the Court had permitted the subsequent purchasers namely defendants 10 to 13, to be impleaded in the suit, it would only be appropriate that the persons who have subsequently purchased substantial portions of the suit property from them are also brought on record as respondents, as any order either granting or denying specific performance ought to be passed in their presence. Though, they may not be necessary parties, they would certainly be categorized as proper parties.

¶68

5/10

¶69

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

¶70

CMP No. 28266 of 2025

¶71

Notice had been directed in this petition and the same has been served.

¶72

Even during the previous hearing, a representation was made by a learned counsel for the proposed respondents. However, vakalat has not yet been filed and it was stated that the same would be filed shortly.

¶73

We are not comfortable with repeated representations being made

¶74

without filing vakalat and seeking further time for filing counter, as it only tends to drag on the proceedings. We therefore deem it appropriate to allow this miscellaneous petition and permit the proposed respondents to be impleaded, granting them liberty to advance their arguments in the appeal itself.

¶75

Taking that view, this Civil Miscellaneous petition in CMP.No.28266

¶76

of 2025 in A.S.No.153 of 2014 stands allowed. No costs.

¶77

Registry to carry out the necessary amendments in the cause title by

¶78

impleading the proposed respondents as further respondents in the appeal suit.

¶79

6/10

¶80

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

¶81

CMP No. 28266 of 2025

¶82

Since notice has already been served, no further notice is required, but

¶83

it is only proper that the said respondents engage a counsel who files vakalat at

¶84

the earliest.

¶85

(C.V.K., J.) (K.B., J.) 15-12-2025 (1/2)

¶86

kak

¶87

Note : Registry is directed to carry out the necessary amendments in the cause title.

¶88

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

¶89

¶90

1.K.Paramasivam, S/o.Kandasamy, 3/165, Kandakulamanicka Village and Post, Sankari Taluk, Salem District.

¶91

2.P.Bhuvaneswari, W/o.K.Paramasivam, 3/165, Kandakulamanicka Village and Post, Sankari Taluk, Salem District.

¶92

3.R.Manickam, S/o.Late Rangasamy, Kandarkulamanicka Village and Post, Sankari Taluk, Salem District.

¶93

4.B.Balasubramaniam, S/o.Late Rangasamy, Kandarkulamanicka Village and Post, Sankari Taluk, Salem District.

¶94

7/10

¶95

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

¶96

CMP No. 28266 of 2025

¶97

P.Jayakumar (Died)

¶98

5.P.Geetha,

¶99

D/o.K.Paramasivam, 3/165, Kandakulamanicka Village and Post, Sankari Taluk, Salem District.

¶100

6.T.K.N. Masilamani,

¶101

S/o.T.K.Natesa Mudaliar, Maniyakkarar Thottam Attayampatti Village, Salem Taluk and District.

¶102

7.G.Venkatesan,

¶103

S/o.L.Gurusamy, 49, A.Kongu Nagar, Gulon Thoppu Karungalpalayam, Erode -3.

¶104

8.M.Maragathavalli,

¶105

S/o.T.K.N.Masilamani, Maniyakkarar Thottam, Attyampatti Village, Salem Taluk and District.

¶106

9.P.Sivalingam,

¶107

S/o.Periyanna Gounder, Vaniyambadi Village, Salem Taluk and District.

¶108

10.K.Sakthivel,

¶109

S/o.Kandasamy Gounder, 4/156, Bangalow Thottam, Uthamasolapuram, Salem -10.

¶110

11.R.Ramesh,

¶111

S/o.Ramachandran, No.11 MGR Nagar, Seelanaickanpatti, Salem -636 201.

¶112

12.A.Sakhivel,

¶113

S/o.Arthanari Gounder, Punchalkkadu Poolavari Agraharam, Salem Taluk and District.

¶114

13.Priya,

¶115

W/o.Late Jayakumar, 9, Vasantha Main Road, Singanallur Post, Coimbatore Taluk and District.

¶116

8/10

¶117

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

¶118

CMP No. 28266 of 2025

¶119

14.Master Sachin,

¶120

S/o.Late Jayakumar, Represented by Natural Guardian Mother (13th Respondent) 9, Vasantha Main Road, Singanallur Post, Coimbatore Taluk and District.

¶121

15.M/s.Annapoorani Shanmugasundram Construction (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, NH 47, Sankari Main Road, Ariyanoor, Salem -636 308.

¶122

16.V.Nihal Chand, S/o.Vijayaraj, Residing at No.71/25, Sankar Nagar, Salem -7.

¶123

17.V.Dhinesh Kumar, S/o.Vijayaraj, Residing at No.71/25, Sankar Nagar, Salem -7.

¶124

18.M/s.Mahalakshmi Media (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Old No.194, New No.216, Rayapettah, Bharathi Salai, Chennai -600 014.

¶125

9/10

¶126

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

¶127

CMP No. 28266 of 2025

¶128

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN J. and K.KUMARESH BABU J.

¶129

kak

¶130

CMP No. 28266 of 2025 in A.S No. 153 of 2014 (1/2)

¶131

15-12-2025

¶132

10/10

¶133

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

V.Thiagarajan, v. K.Paramasivam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Thiagarajan, v. K.Paramasivam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd Vs P.Malathi

Ponnusamy Vs R. Geetha

The Branch Manager Vs Rukumani

K.Srinivasan Vs Deivanai

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Sowmiya

The Tamil Nadu Textile Corporation Limited Vs K. Rajeswaran