Dismissed

Sarathamani v. P. Karuppusamy

Madras HC9 Dec 2025CRP/6224/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. The revisions challenged the Trial Court's orders dismissing applications to reopen a case, recall a witness, and receive a Consent Deed executed pending the primary suit. The Court held that documents executed pending the suit do not affect the validity of the Release Deed being contested.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petitions dismissed. No costs. Connected C.M.P. closed.

Sarathamani Vs P. Karuppusamy — Property and Title | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

C.R.P.Nos.6224, 6226 and 6228 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 09.12.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

C.R.P.Nos.6224, 6226 and 6228 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.30710 of 2025

¶7

Sarathamani

¶8

... Petitioner (in all CRPs)

¶9

vs.

¶10

1.P.Karuppusamy

¶11

2.K.Eswaramoorthy

¶12

3.T.Chandrasekaran

¶13

4.Kandasamy

¶14

5.Thangamuthu

¶15

6.Chellappan

¶16

7.Palaniammal

¶17

8.Jayalakshmi

¶18

9.P.Eswaran

¶19

10.Saroja

¶20

11.P.K.Karthick Kumar

¶21

12.K.G.Gopalakrishnan

¶22

13.C.P.Sengottaiyan ... Respondents (in all CRPs)

¶23

1/6

¶24

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

¶25

C.R.P.Nos.6224, 6226 and 6228 of 2025

¶26

COMMON PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Common Fair order and Final order dated 07.10.2025 made in I.A.Nos.07, 08 and 06 of 2025 in O.S.No.164 of 2014 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Erode.

¶27

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Guruprasad (in all CRPs)

¶28

For Respondents : Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran (in all CRPs)

¶29

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶30

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court in I.A.Nos.07, 08 and 06 of 2025 in O.S.No.164 of 2014, dated 07.10.2025 dismissing the applications filed by the petitioner to reopen the case, recall PW.1 and to receive certain document namely the Consent Deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of 13^th defendant pending suit.

¶31

The petitioner herein filed a suit to set aside the registered Release Deed dated 30.04.2012 allegedly executed by her in favour of 1^st defendant and also for relief of partition. Pending suit, the petitioner/plaintiff said to have executed a Consent Deed on 08.03.2016 in favour of 13^th defendant in respect of portion of the suit properties. The trial in the suit is already over and the suit is posted for argument. At this stage, the instant applications

¶32

2/6

¶33

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

¶34

C.R.P.Nos.6224, 6226 and 6228 of 2025

¶35

have been filed seeking to reopen the case, recall PW.1 and to receive Consent Deed executed by the petitioner/plaintiff. These three applications were dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

¶36

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the execution of Consent Deed by the petitioner in favour of 13^th defendant has to be brought to the notice of the Court and therefore, the instant applications have been filed by the petitioner and without appreciating the same, the Trial Court erroneously dismissed the applications.

¶37

The petitioner filed a suit seeking to set aside the Release Deed allegedly executed by him dated 30.04.2012 in favour of 1^st defendant and also for partition. Pending suit, she said to have executed a Consent Deed dated 08.03.2016 in favour of 13^th defendant in respect of some of the properties.

¶38

The core issue to be decided in the suit is the validity of Release Deed dated 30.04.2012. Any document executed by the plaintiff pending suit will not have any bearing on the validity or otherwise of Release Deed dated 30.04.2012.

¶39

3/6

¶40

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

¶41

C.R.P.Nos.6224, 6226 and 6228 of 2025

¶42

Infact, the petitioner earlier filed an application for amendment of

¶43

prayer by deleting the properties covered by the Consent Deed and the same was dismissed by the Trial Court and the said order was affirmed by this Court in C.R.P.(PD).No.132 of 2017, dated 05.03.2021. Infact, while dismissing the said civil revision petition, this Court also observed that unless the Release Deed executed by the petitioner is declared as null and void, she could not executed any Release Deed or Consent Deed in favour of 13^th defendant/13^th respondent. Therefore, it is clear that the document executed by the petitioner pending suit will not have any bearing on the validity of the Release Deed challenged in suit. The Trial Court rightly appreciated the position and dismissed all the applications and I do not find any material irregularity in the order passed by the Trial Court in I.A.Nos.07, 08 and 06 of 2025 in O.S.No.164 of 2014, dated 07.10.2025.

¶44

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs.

¶45

Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶46

09.12.2025

¶47

Index	: Yes / No
Speaking order	: Yes / No
Neutral Citation dm	: Yes / No

¶48

4/6

¶49

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

¶50

C.R.P.Nos.6224, 6226 and 6228 of 2025

¶51

¶52

The I Additional District Judge, Erode.

¶53

5/6

¶54

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

¶55

C.R.P.Nos.6224, 6226 and 6228 of 2025

¶56

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

¶57

¶58

C.R.P.Nos.6224, 6226 and 6228 of 2025

¶59

09.12.2025

¶60

6/6

¶61

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

Sarathamani v. P. Karuppusamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarathamani v. P. Karuppusamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. T.N. Anirudhan Vs Rohitha Ravisekar

M.Kanchana Vs E.Parameshwari

Peer Saleem Vs W.S.Magdoom Mohamed

C.Gurumoorthy Vs Mohan

Mohan Vs The Mahindra World City Development Ltd.

S. Sulthana Parveen Vs Syed Kasim