Dismissed¶30

J.Sandhiya v. Suguna

Madras HC4 Nov 2025CRP/336/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, CRP.No.336 of 2024 and CMP.No.1565 of 2024, decided 04.11.2025 by S. Sounthar, J. Impleadment / necessary and proper party: adjoining owner holding 68 sq.m in Survey No.674/14 under HSD patta dated 27.12.2016 held not a necessary party to her mother's suit (OS No.484/2018, IA No.4/2023, Tirupur) for cancellation of sale deed dated 28-11-2017 and permanent injunction; Article 227 revision dismissed; no material irregularity or illegality in trial court order; liberty for separate proceedings; no costs.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; Civil Revision Petition dismissed, with liberty to work out her remedy in the manner known to law in separate proceedings if so advised; connected miscellaneous petition (CMP.No.1565 of 2024) closed; no costs. ¶30

J.Sandhiya Vs Suguna — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, claiming ownership of 68 sq.m in Survey No.674/14 adjoining the suit property, is a necessary/proper party whose impleadment is required in the suit by the first respondent against the second respondent for cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

The petitioner is not a party to the sale deed challenged in the suit, and the land she claims (subdivision No.674/14) is not the subject matter of the litigation; even according to her own affidavit she owns only property on the immediate north of the first respondent's property.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Having regard to the nature of the relief sought in the suit, the presence of the petitioner is not at all necessary, and any decree passed in that suit will in no way affect her right, if any, over her property.

¶26

Key takeaways

There is no material irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the court below dismissing the impleadment application.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order dated 06.11.2023 of the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupur, in IA No.4/2023 in OS No.484/2018, dismissing the petitioner's application for impleadment as party defendant in a suit by her mother (first respondent) against the second respondent for cancellation of a sale deed dated 28-11-2017 and permanent injunction over Survey No.674/3 (subdivided as 674/12 and 674/13). The petitioner claimed 68 sq.m in Survey No.674/14, north of the suit property, under an HSD patta dated 27.12.2016, and pleaded joint construction with her mother. Held: the petitioner is not a party to the challenged sale deed; her claimed land is not the subject matter of the litigation; her presence is not necessary and no decree in the suit would affect her rights; hence no material irregularity or illegality in the trial court's order. Revision dismissed; liberty reserved to pursue separate proceedings; connected CMP closed; no costs. (S. Sounthar, J., 04.11.2025.)

¶1

CRP.No.336 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.11.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

CRP.No.336 of 2024 and CMP.No.1565 of 2024

¶7

J.Sandhiya ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.Tmt.Suguna 2. Mr.Maruthachalam ...Respondents

¶10

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying, to set aside the aside the fair and final order dated 06.11.2023 made in IA No.4/2023 in OS No.484/2018 on the file of the Learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupur.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manoj Kumar For Respondent : Mr. S.Vimal for R1 M/s.C.B Geeth Sanchitha forR2 forM/s.M.Guruprasad

¶12

1/5

¶13

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

¶14

CRP.No.336 of 2024

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking her impleadment as party defendant in a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the first respondent against the second respondent.

¶17

The first respondent is the mother of the petitioner. She filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 28-11-2017 in favour of the second respondent and for permanent injunction restraining the second respondent from interfering with her alleged possession over the suit property. As per the description found in the plaint, the survey number of the suit property is 674/3 (subdivided as 674/12 and 674/13).

¶18

The petitioner herein, claiming herself as the owner of the property on the northern side of the plaintiff's property, filed instant application for her impleadment on the ground that she owns 68 Sq.meters of land in Survey No.674/14. In order to support her claim over the suit property, she relied HSD patta issued in her name dated 27.12.2016. It is also stated that a construction was built in her property along with the property of her mother and therefore,

¶19

2/5

¶20

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

¶21

CRP.No.336 of 2024

¶22

she is a necessary party to the litigation. The trial court dismissed the same

¶23

holding that the petitioner was not a proper party to the suit and aggreived by the same, the present revision is filed.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the building in the petitioner's property was constructed jointly with petitioner's mother and hence, the presence of the petitioner is very much necessary for the adjudication. The suit is filed for cancellation of the sale deed allegedly executed by first respondent in favour of the second respondent. The first respondent also sought for a personal relief of permanent injunction against the second respondent.The petitioner is not a party to the sale deed challenged in the suit. The petitioner claims right over the land in subdivision number 674/14

¶25

and the same is not the subject matter of the litigation. Even according to the affidavit filed by the petitioner, she only owns property on immediate north of 1^st respondent's property.

¶26

Having regard to the nature of the relief sought for in this suit, this Court feels that the presence of petitioner is not at all necessary and any decree passed in that suit will no way affect the right of the petitioner if any, over her property. In such circumstances, I do not find any material irregularity or

¶27

3/5

¶28

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

¶29

CRP.No.336 of 2024

¶30

illegality in the order passed by the court below. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed.

¶31

The dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition will not come in the way of the petitioner working out her remedy in the manner known to law, in a separate proceedings, if so advised. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶32

04.11.2025

¶33

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No nr

¶34

To The 1 st Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirupur.

¶35

4/5

¶36

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

¶37

CRP.No.336 of 2024