Dismissed¶39

Alagu v. Sakunthala

Madras HC17 Dec 2025CRP(MD)/3769/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Third-party impleadment in partition suit refused; Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC application by stranger claiming right over 100-year-old cart track / common pathway per revenue records; necessary party test; remedy is a separate suit, not impleadment in partition suit; Article 227 revisional interference declined; District Munsif Court, Melur order upheld; C.R.P.(MD) dismissed with no costs. Relevant to advocates resisting impleadment applications by non-parties to partition suits and on the availability of separate suit as the proper remedy for pathway/easement-type claims.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner has not made out a case to prove that he is a necessary party to the partition suit. ¶38

Alagu Vs Sakunthala — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, a third party claiming right over a 100-year-old cart track shown in revenue records as a common pathway, could be impleaded as a party defendant in the partition suit in O.S.No.190 of 2023. +1 more

¶32

Court's answer

The petitioner has not made out a case to prove that he is a necessary party to the partition suit.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner is having any right over the alleged pathway, it is for him to file a separate suit; in a suit for partition, the petitioner has no right to implead himself as party defendant.

¶38

Key takeaways

This Court does not find any irregularity or infirmity in the order passed by the Court below dismissing the impleadment application.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (N. Senthilkumar, J.) — Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India dismissed. The petitioner, a third party to O.S.No.190 of 2023 (a suit for partition and other reliefs on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur), had filed I.A.No.1 of 2024 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC seeking to implead himself as party defendant, contending that a 100-year-old cart track recorded in revenue records, used by him and other villagers for ingress and egress, was suppressed in the partition suit. The trial court dismissed the application, holding that a claim over the cart track as a common pathway required a separate suit. Held, upholding the trial court's order: the petitioner failed to establish that he was a necessary party to the partition suit; a person asserting any right over an alleged pathway must file a separate suit and cannot be impleaded as a party defendant in a suit for partition; and no irregularity or infirmity was found in the order of the court below. The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed as devoid of merits with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.(MD)No.19846 of 2025) was closed.

¶1

C.R.P.(MD)No.3769 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 17.12.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶6

C.R.P.(MD)No.3769 of 2025 and C.M.P.(MD)No.19846 of 2025

Alagu

... Petitioner

-vs.-

1.Sakunthala

2.Chinnathambi

3.Chinnapillai 4.Chellammal 5.Mallika

¶13

6.Chinnapottu ...Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to call for the records of the Fair and Decreetal order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.190 of 2023, dated 11.11.2025 on the file District Munsif Court, Melur and to set aside and allow the Civil Revision Petition.

¶15

For Petitioner :Mr.E.Prakash *****

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

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

¶18

C.R.P.(MD)No.3769 of 2025

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Melur, in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No. 190 of 2023, dated 11.11.2025.

¶21

2.Heard Mr.E.Prakash, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

¶22

3.The first respondent is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.190 of 2023 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur. The respondents 2 to 6 are the defendants in the suit and the petitioner herein is a third party to the suit. The

¶23

suit in O.S.No.190 of 2023 has been filed for partition and for other reliefs.

¶24

4.During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner, who is a third party to the suit, has filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No. 190 of 2023, under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead him as party defendant in the partition suit on the ground that suppressing the 100 years old cart track, as per the revenue records through which the petitioner and other

¶25

Page 2 of 6

¶26

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

¶27

C.R.P.(MD)No.3769 of 2025

¶28

villagers are accessing ingress and egress through the above pathway, the present partition suit has been filed.

¶29

5.The learned District Munsif, Melur, vide order, dated 11.11.2025, had

¶30

dismissed the said application stating that if the petitioner is claiming right over the cart track as a common pathway, it is for him to file a separate suit and the application to implead him as party defendant in a partition suit is not maintainable. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

¶31

6.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and

¶32

other villagers have right over the 100 years old cart track as per the revenue records and that he is the necessary party to the lis . Hence, the petitioner has filed the present application to implead him as party defendant in the suit. However, the Court below has passed the impugned order without considering the materials facts, which needs interference of this Court.

¶33

7.This Court considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel

¶34

________________ Page 3 of 6_

¶35

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

¶36

C.R.P.(MD)No.3769 of 2025

¶37

for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

¶38

8.From the perusal of the records as well as the impugned order passed by the learned District Munsif, Melur, dated 11.11.2025, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not made out a case to prove that he is a necessary party to the partition suit. It is to be seen that the suit has been filed by the first respondent against the respondents 2 to 6 for partition and in the said suit, the petitioner has filed the application to implead him as party defendant. If the petitioner is having any right over the alleged pathway, it is for him to file a separate suit and that in a suit for partition, the petitioner has no right to implead him as party defendant. This Court does not find any irregularity or infirmity in the order passed by the Court below.

¶39

9.In view of above, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶40

17.12.2025

¶41

Internet :Yes/No

¶42

________________ Page 4 of 6_

¶43

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

¶44

C.R.P.(MD)No.3769 of 2025

¶45

NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No cmr