Dismissed¶12

S. Raveendran v. C.S Elango

Madras HC28 Jan 2026CRP/3124/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Impleadment of subsequent purchasers as necessary/proper parties under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC in a partition suit; dismissal of impleading application for want of bona fides, delay (2001 purchases versus September 2014 application), accrued rights and drastic delay; plaintiff's non-denial of 2001 sales of Suit Item Nos.7 and 8; Gift Settlement Deed to local body circa 2001; Family Arrangement dated December 09, 1992 left unexamined; Article 227 revision dismissed; Trial Court order sustained; no costs; connected CMP closed; Madras High Court; Erode; C.R.P.No.3124 of 2017; Neutral Citation 2026:MHC:329.

What did the court decide?

The plaintiff did not deny that the properties in Suit Item Nos.7 and 8 were sold in 2001 to the proposed parties. ¶11

S. Raveendran Vs C.S Elango — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the purchasers from the 1st Defendant (proposed Defendants 5 to 51) are necessary parties to the partition suit O.S.No.176 of 2013, and whether the Trial Court rightly dismissed the plaintiff's impleading application I.A.No.570 of 2014 under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 CPC.

¶7

Court's answer

The plaintiff did not deny that the properties in Suit Item Nos.7 and 8 were sold in 2001 to the proposed parties.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Allowing the impleading petition would prejudice the rights of the proposed parties accrued over the twelve years between their 2001 purchases and the filing of the suit, and would drastically delay the proceedings.

¶11

Key takeaways

The impleading application, moved only in September 2014 despite the 2001 purchases, lacked bona fides.ratio¶11
It is not believable that the plaintiff was unaware of the proposed parties' purchases, given his plea of joint possession and the Gift Settlement Deed executed by Defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the local body around 2001.ratio¶11
The Court left open the character of the alleged Family Arrangement dated December 09, 1992, recording its inability to find from the written statement whether the document was registered or unregistered, or whether it recorded past transactions or dealt with rights in presenti.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (R. Sakthivel, J.; order reserved 09.12.2025, pronounced 28.01.2026; Neutral Citation 2026:MHC:329) dismissed C.R.P.No.3124 of 2017 under Article 227 filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.176 of 2013 (partition suit before the I Additional District Judge, Erode) against the Fair and Final Order dated 30.09.2016 in I.A.No.570 of 2014, whereby his application under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 CPC to implead the purchasers from the 1st Defendant (proposed Defendants 5 to 51) was dismissed. The Court observed that the proposed parties purchased plots out of Suit Item Nos.7 and 8 in 2001 after verifying revenue records and possession; the impleading application was filed only in September 2014; the plaintiff, who pleaded joint possession, ought to have learnt of the purchases (Defendants 1 to 3 having also executed a Gift Settlement Deed in favour of the local body around 2001); impleading would prejudice rights accrued over twelve years and drastically delay the proceedings; hence no bona fides behind the application. The Trial Court's order was sustained; no order as to costs; connected C.M.P.No.14600 of 2017 closed.

¶1

2026:MHC:329

¶2

C.R.P.NO.3124 OF 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

ORDER RESERVED ON : 09 / 12 / 2025

¶5

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 28 / 01 / 2026

¶6

CORAM :

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

¶8

C.R.P.NO.3124 OF 2017 AND

¶9

C.M.P.NO.14600 OF 2017

¶10

S.Raveendran

¶11

... Petitioner/Petitioner/ Plaintiff

¶12

Versus

¶13

1.C.S.Elango 2.S.Sethupathy 3.S.Jothikrishnan 4.Devi

¶14

...Respondents 1 to 4/ Respondents 1 to 4/ Defendants

¶15

5.Sampoornam 6.C.Shanmugam 7.V.Saminathan 8.C.Muthusamy 9.Indirani 10.Samiappan 11.Matheswaran 12.Nallasivam 13.Ramasamy 14.Arayee 15.Ravi 16.Chinnaponnu 17.Poongothai 18.Sandakumar

¶16

Page No.1 of 12

¶17

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

¶18

C.R.P.NO.3124 OF 2017

¶19

19.Saravanan 20.Kalaiarasi 21.Periasamy 22.Easwari 23.Raju 24.Thangavel 25.Karuppannan 26.Thulasimani 27.Ramalingam 28.Ambika 29.Jothimani 30.Sengottaiyan 31.Raju 32.Ravi 33.Gunasekaran 34.Sivasakthi 35.Malliga 36.Palanisamy 37.Subramani 38.Lakshmi 39.Chenniappan 40.Palanisamy 41.Indira 42.Poongodi 43.Duraisamy 44.Kannammal 45.Thambikalaiyan 46.Umapthi 47.Kaliannan 48.Annamalai 49.Kandiyayee 50.Dhanasekar 51.Prakash ...Respondents 5 to 51/ Respondents 5 to 51/

¶20

Proposed Parties

¶21

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, 1950, praying to set aside the Fair and Final Order dated September 30, 2016 made in I.A.No.570 of 2014 in O.S.No.176 of 2013 on the file of I Additional District Court, Erode.

¶22

Page No.2 of 12

¶23

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

¶24

C.R.P.NO.3124 OF 2017

¶25

For Petitioner : Ms.D.Sathya for Ms.Zeenath Begum For Respondents1 to 3 : Mr.K.Arunraj - No appearance For Respondents5, 34, 40, 41, 45 & 51 : Served – No appearance For Respondents10 to 14, 16 to 25, 29 to 33, 36, 38, 43, 44 & 48 to 50 : Mr.S.Sankar For Respondents4, 6 to 9, 15, 26 to 29, 35, 37, 39, 42, 46 & 47 : Dismissed vide Order of this Court dated February 10, 2023

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Feeling aggrieved by the Dismissal Order passed in a petition filed

¶28

by the Plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ('CPC' for short) in I.A.No.570 of 2014 in O.S.No.176 of 2013 on the file of 'the I Additional District Judge, Erode' [hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court'], the Petitioner/Plaintiff therein has preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

¶29

2. The Revision Petitioner herein is the Plaintiff and the Respondents 1 to 4 herein are the Defendants in the Suit in O.S.No.176 of 2013 and the Respondents 5 to 51 are the proposed Defendants 5 to 51 in Page No.3 of 12

¶30

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

¶31

C.R.P.NO.3124 OF 2017

¶32

the aforesaid Suit. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

¶33

3. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Suit Properties were acquired by N.Songappan vide a Partition Deed dated May 03, 1974 as ancestral properties. The aforesaid N.Songappan passed away leaving behind his wife, namely, Pavathal and four sons, namely, C.S.Elango (Defendant-1), S.Raveendran (Plaintiff), S.Sethupathy (Defendant-2), S.Jothikrishnan (Defendant-3) and one daughter namely, Devi (Defendant-4).

¶34

3.1. Further case of the Plaintiff is that 30 years prior to the Suit, the 4th Defendant orally relinquished her share in favour of her brothers, namely, the Plaintiff and the Defendants 1 to 3 and as such the Plaintiffs and the Defendants 1 to 3 alone are enjoying the suit properties in common. There was a misunderstanding between the Plaintiff and the Defendants 1 to 3 enjoying the properties in common and hence, the Plaintiff filed a Suit seeking partition of the Suit Properties and a permanent injunction against the Defendants 1 to 3.

¶35

4. The 1 st Defendant filed written statement in the month of November 2013, which was adopted by 2 nd and 3 rd Defendants. The case

¶36

Page No.4 of 12

¶37

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

¶38

C.R.P.NO.3124 OF 2017

¶39

of the 1

¶40

of the 1 st Defendant is that after the demise of N.Songappan on December

¶41

09, 1992, the Plaintiff and the Defendants 1 to 3 and their mother - Pavathal arrived at a Family Settlement and the same was reduced into writing. In the said Family Arrangement, 'A' Schedule property therein was allotted to Pavathal, the mother of the Plaintiff and Defendants; 'B' Schedule property therein was allotted to the 1 st Defendant; 'C' Schedule property therein was allotted to the Plaintiff; 'D' Schedule property therein was allotted to the 2 nd Defendant; 'E' Schedule property therein was allotted to the 3 rd Defendant. As per the Family Arrangement dated December 09, 1992, Suit Item Nos.7 and 8 of the Suit Property were allotted to 1 st Defendant and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. Thereafter, in 2001, he converted the aforesaid land into house sites and sold them for more than 60 persons. Suppressing the said fact, the plaint has been filed with a mala-fide intention. The Suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties. In the event of concluding that the Plaintiff is entitled to a share in the Suit Property, the portion that are enjoyed by the proposed defendants may be allotted to them under equity. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the Suit.

¶42

5. After filing of the written statement, the Plaintiff filed a petition under Order I Rule 10 (2) of CPC seeking to implead the purchasers of Page No.5 of 12

¶43

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

¶44

C.R.P.NO.3124 OF 2017

¶45

the suit property from the 1 st Defendant stating that Sale Deeds were

¶46

created with a view to defeat and defraud the Plaintiff's right over the Suit Properties. The proposed parties filed a counter stating that they are not necessary parties to the Suit, that they purchased the properties from the

¶47

1st Defendant in the year 2001 itself and they are bonafide purchasers with value. Hence, the possessions of the purchasers are adverse to the Plaintiff. Further, no relief was sought against the proposed parties. Accordingly, they prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶48

6. The Trial Court after hearing both sides' concluded that the proposed parties / respondents 6, 9, 15, 27, 28, 37, 40 and 45 purchased the properties as early as in the year 2001. Hence, the relief sought for by the Plaintiff is barred by limitation and accordingly, dismissed the Interlocutory Application.

¶49

7. Ms.D.Sathya appearing on behalf of Ms.Zeenath Begum, Counsel on record for the Revision Petitioner / Plaintiff submits that there was no Family Arrangement as alleged by the 1 st Defendant. The 1 st Defendant with a view to defeat and defraud the right of the Plaintiff, created various Sale Deeds in favour of the proposed parties. Hence, they are necessary parties to decide the li s . The Trial Court without

¶50

Page No.6 of 12

¶51

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

¶52

C.R.P.NO.3124 OF 2017

¶53

appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, erred in dismissing the Interlocutory Application. Therefore, she prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition, set aside the Order passed by the Trial Court and to allow the Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.570 of 2014.

¶54

8. Per contra , Mr.S.Sankar, learned Counsel appearing for the proposed parties submits that there was a Family Arrangement took place between the Plaintiff and the Defendant's mother on December 09, 1992. Pursuant to the Family Arrangement, the Plaintiff and the Defendants 1 to 3 were enjoying their property and mutated the revenue records. After verifying the revenue records and possession, the proposed parties purchased the properties in the year 2001 from the 1 st Defendant with value and they are bonafide purchasers. Hence, only with a view to harass the proposed parties, he filed the Original Suit and Interlocutory Application. There is no bonafide intent in filing the Interlocutory Application. The Trial Court after appreciating the entire facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the Interlocutory Application and there is no need to interfere with it. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss this Civil Revision Petition and sustain the Order passed by the Trial Court.

¶55

Page No.7 of 12

¶56

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

¶57

C.R.P.NO.3124 OF 2017

¶58

9. This Court has considered both sides' submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶59

10. Admittedly, the suit properties were acquired by N.Songappan vide Partition Deed dated May 03, 1974 as ancestral properties. Admittedly, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants 1 to 3 alone are enjoying the Suit Properties in common. The Plaintiff filed the Suit seeking partition of the Suit Properties from the Defendants 1 to 3 and also permanent injunction against them. After the demise of N.Songappan, the Plaintiff and the Defendants 1 to 4 are entitled to the Suit Properties. According to the 1 st Defendant, after the demise of N.Songappan, a Family Arrangement took place on December 09, 1992.

¶60

11. On perusal of the written statement, though the 1 st Defendant pleaded the said fact, the Family Arrangement document was not annexed in the written statement. This Court is unable to find whether the Family Arrangement document is registered or unregistered, whether the said Family Arrangement is a document to record past transactions or deals with rights in presenti . The 1 st Defendant has categorically pleaded in the written statement that he sold Suit Item Nos.7 and 8 to third parties. The proposed parties in their counter pleaded that they purchased their

¶61

Page No.8 of 12

¶62

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

¶63

C.R.P.NO.3124 OF 2017

¶64

respective properties from 1 st Defendant in 2001 after verification of the records and the possession of 1 st Defendant. The plaintiff did not deny the fact that the properties in Suit Item Nos.7 and 8 were sold in 2001 to the proposed parties. In these circumstances, if the petition is allowed, the proposed parties' rights, accrued in the 12 years between the purchase and filing of Suit, would be prejudiced. To be noted, the Interlocutory Application has been filed in the month of September 2014. Hence, there is no bonafides behind the Interlocutory Application. If the Interlocutory Application is allowed, it will delay the proceedings drastically. The proposed parties i.e., more than 45 people, had purchased the portions of Suit Item Nos.7 and 8 as plots in the year 2001. Had the plaintiff taken minimum care, he would have learnt about the purchase. To be noted, the plaintiff has pleaded that he is in joint possession and enjoyment of suit property. It is learnt that the defendants 1 to 3 executed a Gift Settlement Deed in favour of the local body for formation of road and other purpose in or around the year 2001. Under such circumstances, it is not believable that the plaintiff was not aware of the purchase made by the proposed parties.

¶65

Page No.9 of 12

¶66

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

¶67

C.R.P.NO.3124 OF 2017

¶68

12. In view of the foregoing narrative, the Civil Revision Petition is

¶69

dismissed and the Order of the Trial Court under challenge is sustained. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no

¶70

order as to costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.