Janaki (Mentally Disabled) Vs Gopalthaai — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Janaki (Mentally Disabled) Vs Gopalthaai — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Civil Miscellaneous Petition allowed: order dated 08.07.2021 dismissing S.A(MD)No.143 of 2011 as withdrawn recalled; Second Appeal restored to file; Gopalthaai transposed as respondent; Registry directed to list the Second Appeal before the Hon'ble Judge holding the roster.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 08.07.2021 dismissing S.A(MD)No.143 of 2011 as withdrawn ought to be recalled, given that the first appellant Janaki has been suffering from schizophrenia for more than ten years, so that the consent taken from her for withdrawing the second appeal could not have been accepted.

Court's answer

The order dated 08.07.2021 dismissing S.A(MD)No.143 of 2011 as withdrawn is recalled and the Second Appeal is restored to file.

Ratio / Principle

Since Gopalthaai states that the second appeal was withdrawn with her consent, the order of restoration shall not enure to her benefit, and the second appeal shall stand as withdrawn insofar as she is concerned.

Key takeaways

Taking into account that Gopalthaai is contesting the CMP, she is transposed as a respondent in the restored second appeal.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), G.R. Swaminathan J. (single member), order dated 06.07.2026: C.M.P(MD)No.6589 of 2026 in S.A(MD)No.143 of 2011 allowed. The order dated 08.07.2021 dismissing the second appeal as withdrawn is recalled and the second appeal is restored to file. Basis: affidavit of Selvaraj, son of first appellant Janaki (a mentally disabled person), that she has suffered schizophrenia for over ten years, so her consent to withdrawal of the appeal could not have been accepted. The second appeal arose from a partition suit (OS No.13 of 2008, District Munsif Court, Oddanchatram, dismissed 28.03.2008; first appeal A.S.No.35 of 2008, Sub Court, Palani, dismissed 30.08.2010). Because Gopalthaai (second appellant below) asserts she consented to the withdrawal and opposes the CMP, the restoration does not enure to her benefit, the appeal stands withdrawn insofar as she is concerned, and she is transposed as a respondent. Registry directed to list the Second Appeal before the Judge holding the roster.

C.M.P(MD)No.6589 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 06.07.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN C.M.P(MD)No.6589 of 2026

in

S.A(MD)No.143 of 2011

Janaki (Mentally Disabled), D/o. Kuppana Gounder, Represented by Selvaraj, S/o. Kuppusamy, No.187, Kanika Thottam, Kongur, Undarapatti Post, Dharapuram Taluk, Tiruppur District.

Petitioner / First Appellant

Vs

1.Gopalthaai ... Respondent / 2^nd Appellant 2.Thangavel 3.Deivanai ... Respondents/ Respondents For Petitioner(s):

Mr.M.Kumar

For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Anand Chandrasekar for R.3

1/4

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

C.M.P(MD)No.6589 of 2026

ORDER

Heard both sides.

2.One Janaki and Gopalthaai, daughters of late Kuppana Gounder filed OS No.13 of 2008 on the file of District Munsif Court, Oddanchatram seeking the relief of partition. The suit was dismissed on 28.03.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed A.S.No.35 of 2008 before the Sub Court, Palani. The first appeal was also dismissed on 30.08.2010. Aggrieved by the same, SA(MD)No.143 of 2011 was filed. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants wanted to withdraw the second appeal. Accordingly, it was dismissed as withdrawn on 08.07.2021.

3.Subsequently, CMP(MD)No.6589 of 2026 was taken out for recalling the said order. This CMP was filed on behalf of the first appellant Janaki. Her son Selvaraj has filed an affidavit stating that his mother Janaki has been suffering from schizophrenia for more than 10 years and that, therefore, the consent taken from her for withdrawing the second appeal could not have been accepted.

2/4

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

C.M.P(MD)No.6589 of 2026

4.This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is vehemently opposed only by the first respondent Gopalthaai. Gopalthaai was the second appellant in the second appeal. She cannot be said to be an aggrieved person if this CMP is allowed. Since Gopalthaai states that the second appeal was withdrawn with her consent, the order of restoration shall not enure to her benefit, and the second appeal shall stand as withdrawn insofar as she is concerned. No counter has been filed by the legal heirs of Thangavel. I, therefore, deem it fit and appropriate to recall the said order. The order dated 08.07.2021 dismissing the SA(MD)No.143 of 2011 as withdrawn is recalled. Second Appeal is restored to file. However, taking into account the fact that Gopalthaai is contesting this CMP, she is transposed as a respondent in the second appeal.

5.This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed accordingly.

Registry is directed to list the Second Appeal before the Hon'ble Judge holding the roster.

MGA

Note: Registry is directed to list the Second Appeal before the Hon'ble Judge holding the roster.

3/4

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

C.M.P(MD)No.6589 of 2026

G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J. MGA

C.M.P(MD)No.6589 of 2026

in S.A(MD)No.143 of 2011

06.07.2026 1/2

4/4

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