Dismissed¶31

Palanisamy v. B. Kanagaraj

Madras HC26 Jun 2025CRP/2537/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRP NPD.No.2537 of 2025; CMP.No.14480 of 2025; Palanisamy v. Kanagaraj and others; Madras High Court; Article 227 of Constitution of India; impleadment of transferee during pendency of final decree proceedings; Order XXII Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure; preliminary decree dated 06.01.1997 in O.S.No.453 of 1993 (O.S.No.1650 of 2004); I.A.No.1382 of 2004; I.A.No.3 of 2024; settlement deed and rectification deed dated 17.10.2024; Additional District Munsif Court at Namakkal; order dated 23.01.2025; revision petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Where a transfer is effected during the pendency of proceedings, the transferee can, with the leave of the Court, come on record and continue the suit as per Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ¶30

Palanisamy Vs B. Kanagaraj — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether a transferee of the decree holder's share, effected during the pendency of the final decree proceedings, may properly be impleaded on record to continue those proceedings, such that the trial Court's order allowing the impleadment application (I.A.No.3 of 2024) should stand.

¶24

Court's answer

¶30

Ratio / Principle

As the trial Court took note of the transfer effected by a registered document and allowed the application impleading the transferee in the final decree proceedings, this Court found no merits in the Civil Revision Petition challenging that impleadment.

¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N. Sathish Kumar, J.) — Civil Revision Petition CRP NPD.No.2537 of 2025 (under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) dismissed. Challenge was to the Order dated 23.01.2025 of the Additional District Munsif Court, Namakkal, allowing I.A.No.3 of 2024 in I.A.No.1382 of 2024 in O.S.No.1650 of 2004, whereby a third party said to be the transferee of the original decree holder's share was impleaded to continue the final decree proceedings. The share had been transferred pending final decree proceedings (which followed a preliminary decree dated 06.01.1997 in O.S.No.453 of 1993) by way of settlement together with a rectification deed dated 17.10.2024. Holding: a transfer effected during the pendency of proceedings entitles the transferee, with the leave of the Court, to come on record and continue the suit as per Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure; the trial Court having noted the registered-document transfer and allowed the impleadment, the revision petition lacked merit and was dismissed without costs, with the connected miscellaneous petition (CMP.No.14480 of 2025) closed.

¶1

CRP NPD.No.2537 of 2025

¶2

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Date : 26.06.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

CRP [NPD] No.2537 of 2025 & CMP.No.14480 of 2025

¶7

Palanisamy

¶8

Versus

¶9

Kanagaraj

¶10

Marappa Gounder

¶11

Nallusamy

¶12

Ramasamy

¶13

Perumal

¶14

Kannan

¶15

Selvarani 8. Suseela . . . Respondents

¶16

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal Order dated 23.01.2025 made in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in I.A.No.1382 of 2024 in O.S.No.1650 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court at Namakkal.

¶17

For petitioner : Mr.T.I.Thirumalaisamy

¶18

Page 1 / 5

¶19

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

¶20

CRP NPD.No.2537 of 2025

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Challenge has been made to the Order of the trial Court allowing the application filed by the first respondent in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in I.A.No.1382 of 2004 in O.S.No.1650 of 2004, the present Civil Revision Petition has been

¶23

filed.

¶24

An application has been taken out by the third party, who is said to be transferee from the original decree holder. The petitioner is none other than the grand son of the decree holder Marappa Gounde, in whose favour the preliminary decree has been passed in O.S.No.453 of 1993 [O.S.o.1650 of 2004]. In the said suit a preliminary decree was passed on 06.01.1997. After the preliminary decree, an application has been taken out by the plaintiff for passing of final decree in I.A.No.1382 of 2004. Pending final decree proceedings, the plaintiff had transferred his share by way of settlement and also executed a rectification deed dated 17.10.2024. Therefore, based on the said document, the transferee had filed an application to implead him to continue the final decree proceedings as the second petitioner. Challenging the

¶25

Page 2 / 5

¶26

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

¶27

CRP NPD.No.2537 of 2025

¶28

same, the present revision petition has been filed.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused entire materials available on record.

¶30

It is relevant to note that admittedly, shares have been determined in the preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff by a decree and judgment dated 06.01.1997 and before passing of the final decree, the share of the plaintiff has been transferred in favour of the proposed party, namely his grand son. Therefore, this Court is of the view that when the transfer is effected during the pendency of the proceedings, the transferee is always, with the leave of the Court, can come on record to continue the suit as per Order XXII Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure. In such view of the matter, as the trial Court has taken note of the transfer by way of a registered document has allowed the application and impleaded him as one of a party in the final decree proceedings. Hence, I do not find any merits in this Civil Revision Petition.

¶31