Dismissed¶56

Malathi v. Shanthi

Madras HC10 Jul 2026CRP/1043/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Impleadment of subsequent settlee as additional plaintiff in pending injunction suit refused; Article 227 civil revision petition dismissed by Madras High Court (10.07.2026); impleader at part-heard stage defeats defendants' rights and delays disposal; claimant under settlement deeds executed during pendency must file separate proceedings for her own cause of action; interim stay in revision petition vacated; O.S. No. 221 of 2016, District Munsif, Omalur; I.A. No. 1 of 2022; C.M.P. No. 5430 of 2024.

What did the court decide?

An applicant who claims rights over the suit property through settlement deeds executed after the suit was filed cannot intervene in the pending suit between other parties, since her claim rests on a different cause of action; she must agitate her boundary-related grievances independently through separate legal proceedings.

Malathi Vs Shanthi — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court rightly dismissed I.A. No. 1 of 2022, whereby the 1st petitioner sought to implead herself as the 3rd plaintiff in O.S. No. 221 of 2016, and whether the civil revision petition calls for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. +1 more

¶44

Court's answer

¶46

Ratio / Principle

Impleading the 1st petitioner as the 3rd plaintiff in the 2016 suit, which was already at the part-heard stage when the 2022 application was made, would defeat the rights of the defendants and affect their right to early disposal of the suit.

¶47

Key takeaways

The civil revision petition has no merit; the Trial Court rightly rejected the 1st petitioner's application seeking to implead herself as the 3rd plaintiff to the suit.ratio¶55
Since the interim stay operating in the civil revision petition from 2024 onwards had stalled progress in the suit, the interim stay had to be immediately vacated.ratio¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Abdul Quddhose, J.), C.R.P. No. 1043 of 2024 under Article 227 of the Constitution, decided 10.07.2026 — dismissed, affirming the order dated 10.08.2023 of the District Munsif, Omalur in I.A. No. 1 of 2022 in O.S. No. 221 of 2016. The 2016 suit by petitioners 2 and 3 (the 1st petitioner's mother-in-law and husband) against the respondents was for permanent injunction in a boundary dispute. Pending the suit, settlement deeds were executed in favour of the 3rd petitioner (31.01.2019) and thereafter in favour of the 1st petitioner (29.01.2021); claiming absolute ownership thereby, she sought impleadment as 3rd plaintiff in 2022 when the suit was part-heard. Held: (i) an applicant whose claim arises from post-suit settlement deeds and a different cause of action must agitate her rights independently by separate legal proceedings and cannot intervene in the pending suit; (ii) impleadment at the part-heard stage would defeat the defendants' rights and their right to early disposal; (iii) the interim stay enjoyed in the revision petition from 2024 onwards, having stalled the suit, was to be immediately vacated. No costs; connected C.M.P. No. 5430 of 2024 closed.

¶1

C.R.P. No. 1043 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10.07.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

C.R.P. No. 1043 of 2024

¶7

¶8

C.M.P. No. 5430 of 2024

¶9

Malathi

¶10

M. Saradha

¶11

Rameshkumar @ Suresh

¶12

..Petitioners

¶13

Vs.

¶14

Shanthi

¶15

Inbavalli

¶16

Marappan

¶17

Sadayan

¶18

Palanisamy

¶19

..Respondents

¶20

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution

¶21

of India as against the fair and final order dated 10.08.2023 passed in I.A. No. 1 of 2022 in O.S. No. 221 of 2016 by the learned District Munsif,

¶22

Omalur.

¶23

For Petitioners :: Mr.B. Vijayakumar

¶24

1\6

¶25

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

¶26

C.R.P. No. 1043 of 2024

¶27

For Respondents :: Mr.K.B. Shrinivaas for Mr.T.M. Naveen for R1

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

This civil revision petition has been filed challenging the

¶30

impugned order dated 10.08.2023 passed in I.A. No. 1 of 2022 in O.S. No. 221 of 2016 by the learned District Munsif, Omalur.

¶31

By the aforesaid order, the application filed by the 1^st

¶32

petitioner to implead herself as the 3^rd plaintiff to the suit in O.S. No. 221 of 2016 has been dismissed.

¶33

The 1^st petitioner claims that there was a dispute with regard to the boundaries of the suit property between petitioners 2 and 3 herein and the respondents and therefore, petitioners 2 and 3 herein/plaintiffs 1 and 2 filed the suit in O.S. No. 221 of 2016 seeking permanent injunction as against the respondents. Petitioners 2 and 3 are respectively the motherin-law and the husband of the 1^st petitioner. According to the 1^st petitioner, pending the suit, the 2^nd petitioner had executed a settlement deed in favour of the 3^rd petitioner on 31.01.2019 and subsequently, the 3^rd petitioner had executed a settlement deed in favour of the 1^st petitioner on 29.01.2021 in respect of the suit schedule property. Since the suit property has been settled

¶34

2\6

¶35

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

¶36

C.R.P. No. 1043 of 2024

¶37

in her favour by the 3^rd petitioner/ her husband, the 1^st petitioner claims that she has become the absolute owner of the suit property and only under those circumstances, the 1^st petitioner claims that she was constrained to file I.A. No. 1 of 2022 seeking to implead herself as the 3^rd plaintiff to the suit in O.S. No. 221 of 2016 on the file of District Munsif, Omalur. However, the Trial Court, by the impugned order, has rejected the application filed by the 1^st petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, this civil revision petition has been filed.

¶38

Admittedly, the suit was filed by petitioners 2 and 3 as against the respondents herein/defendants in the year 2016 itself. There seems to be a boundary dispute between the plaintiffs/petitioners 2 and 3 herein and the defendants/respondents. The suit was filed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants/respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiffs/petitioners 2 and 3 herein. But, only in the year 2022, the 1^st petitioner filed I.A. No. 1 of 2022 seeking to implead herself as a 3^rd plaintiff to the suit in O.S. No. 221 of 2016 due to reasons stated supra. The Trial Court, under the impugned order, has rightly dismissed the application filed by the 1^st petitioner on the ground that there is no cause of action for the 1^st

¶39

3\6

¶40

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

¶41

C.R.P. No. 1043 of 2024

¶42

petitioner to implead herself as the 3^rd plaintiff to the suit in O.S. No. 221 of 2016 on the file of District Munsif, Omalur.

¶43

This Court is of the considered view that there is no

¶44

infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the application filed by the 1^st petitioner for the following reasons:

¶45

(i) If the 1^st petitioner has any dispute with regard to any of

¶46

the parties to the suit with regard to the boundaries of the suit schedule property, she will have to agitate her rights independently by separate legal proceedings and she cannot intervene in a suit filed by petitioners 2 and 3 and the respondents in respect of a different cause of action.

¶47

(ii) The suit is of the year 2016. The application of the 1^st petitioner to implead herself as the 3^rd plaintiff to the suit was filed in the year 2022 when the suit was at the part-heard stage. If the 1^st petitioner is allowed to implead herself as the 3^rd plaintiff to the suit, which is at the partheard stage, the rights of the defendants in the suit in O.S. No. 221 of 2016 would get defeated and their right for early disposal of the suit would also get affected.

¶48

4\6

¶49

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

¶50

C.R.P. No. 1043 of 2024

¶51

(iii)

¶52

(iii) The petitioner is having the benefit of interim stay in this civil

¶53

revision petition from the year 2024 onwards. In view of the interim stay granted, the progress in the suit has been stalled. Therefore, the interim stay granted by this Court has to be immediately vacated due to the reasons stated supra.

¶54