Dismissed¶45

The South Indian Bank v. a.Anbalagan

Madras HC24 Jun 2025CRP(MD)/868/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

South Indian Bank Ltd. v. A.Anbalagan and others, C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.868 of 2021 (with C.M.P.(MD)No.4706 of 2021), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, M. Dhandapani J., decided 24.06.2025. Condonation of 1102 days' delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for impleading the legal heirs of deceased guarantor-mortgagors in bank suit O.S.No.47 of 2007; married daughters who neither borrowed nor guaranteed are not necessary parties to the suit unless they claim a right over the mortgaged property; trial Court order upheld; revision dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

None; the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.(MD)No.4706 of 2021) was closed. ¶45

The South Indian Bank Vs a.Anbalagan — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.868 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 24.06.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.868 of 2021 and C.M.P.(MD)No.4706 of 2021

¶7

The South Indian Bank Ltd., a Scheduled Bank, (Registered Under the Companies Act 1956 and Governed by the Provisions of the Banking Regulation Act 1949), Having its Registered Pffoce at Trichur, Kerala State and amongst others a Branch

¶8

at No1, Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 34, Represented by its Manager.

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.A.Anbalagan

R.Alagappan (died)

2.A.Meenakshi (died)

3.Anbu Selvi

4.Anbalagi

5.Thiruselvi

¶17

6.Vazuki 7.R.Alagappan ... Respondents

¶18

1/6

¶19

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

¶20

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.868 of 2021

¶21

[R2 died and R1 & R6, who are already on record, are recorded as Lrs of the deceased R2]

¶22

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition - filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 21.07.2021 made in I.A.No.243 of 2016 in O.S.No.47 of 2007 passed by the Principal Sub Court at Pudukkottai.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.L.S.M.Mohamed Kader Sahib For Respondents : No Appearance

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 21.07.2021 made in I.A.No.243 of 2016 by the Principal Sub Court, Pudukkottai.

¶26

2 .The petitioner Bank is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.47 of 2007.

¶27

The first defendant is the son of the second and third defendants. The first defendant availed loan from the plaintiff bank and the second and third defendants stood as a guarantor for the said loan by mortgaging the property owned by the second and third defendants. During the pendency of the suit, the second and third defendants died. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an

¶28

2/6

¶29

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

¶30

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.868 of 2021

¶31

application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1102 days in filing petition to implead the legal heirs of the second and third defendants. The said application was dismissed. Challenging the same, the Civil Revision Petition is filed.

¶32

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that admittedly, the respondents 4 to 7 are the daughters of second and third defendants. The property, which was mortgaged with the petitioner bank still stands in the name of the second and third defendants. Hence, if the suit is decreed in favour of the bank, necessarily they have to file an execution proceedings to proceed with the property. The respondents 3 to 7 being the legal heirs of second and third defendants, may object for the same as they have rights in their parents' property. Therefore, they were sought to be impleaded as necessary parties in the suit. However, the trial Court without considering all these aspects, has dismissed the petition. Accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders.

¶33

4.Though the name of the respondents are printed in the cause list,

¶34

none appeared on their behalf. However, considering the pendency of the

¶35

3/6

¶36

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

¶37

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.868 of 2021

¶38

petition, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition based on the available records.

¶39

5.The facts in the present case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the first respondent is the son of the second and third defendants. The second and third defendants stood as a guarantor for the loan availed by the first defendant from the plaintiff bank. Initially, the suit was filed as against the defendants 1 to 3 alone. Subsequently, the second and third defendants died. Therefore, the female legal heirs of the second and third defendants were sought to be impleaded in the suit. The trial Court arrived at a conclusion that since the female legal heirs are married, they are not the necessary party to the suit.

¶40

6.As concluded by the trial Court, unless the loan amount is appropriated with the suit property, which was mortgaged by the parents of the respondents 3 to 7 and unless the suit is decreed to recover the amount from the first defendant and the same could not be recovered, the female legal heirs of the defendants 2 and 3 are not the necessary party to the suit. The respondents 3 to 7 have not borrowed any amount from the bank and they

¶41

4/6

¶42

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

¶43

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.868 of 2021

¶44

never stood as a guarantor for the loan availed from the bank. If the private respondents claims any right over the suit property, then they may be the necessary party. Until such time, they are not the necessary party. The trial Court has rightly appreciated the said facts and dismissed the application. Hence, the order of the trial Court need not be interfered.

¶45

7.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶46

24.06.2025

¶47

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ta

¶48

¶49