Sangeetha v. Indirani

Madras HC5 Mar 2026CRP/4286/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ex-parte order — application to set aside dismissed for about 9-year delay — civil revision allowed by Madras High Court; registered family partition deed dated 27.02.2006 to be proved with evidence; in partition suit all parties treated as plaintiffs; no prejudice to respondents in permitting defendants to join; multiplicity of proceedings avoided; Subordinate Court, Harur, Dharmapuri; O.S. No. 49 of 2014; I.A. No. 1 of 2022; impugned order dated 02.02.2023; ex-parte order dated 15.04.2015; no costs.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Trial Court in I.A. No. 1 of 2022 in O.S. No. 49 of 2014 is set aside, restoring the defendants'/petitioners' application to set aside the ex-parte order dated 15.04.2015; no costs awarded; pending petition(s), if any, closed. ¶¶56

Sangeetha Vs Indirani — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether the fair and decreetal order dated 02.02.2023 of the Subordinate Court, Harur in I.A. No. 1 of 2022 in O.S. No. 49 of 2014 (dismissing the application to set aside the ex-parte order dated 15.04.2015) is liable to be set aside so as to permit the defendants/petitioners to participate in the partition suit.

¶¶34

Court's answer

If a partition was in fact held between the parties, they are entitled to prove it, since the alleged partition is a registered partition effected among family members; consequently, giving the defendants/petitioners an opportunity to lead evidence would cause no prejudice to the respondents.

¶¶56

Ratio / Principle

In a partition suit all parties are treated as plaintiffs, and setting aside the Trial Court's dismissal avoids multiplicity of proceedings.

¶¶56

Key takeaways

The order passed by the Trial Court in I.A. No. 1 of 2022 in O.S. No. 49 of 2014 is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.ratio¶¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (T.V. Thamilselvi, J.), CRP No. 4286 of 2025 (with CMP No. 22010 of 2025), decided 05-03-2026 — ALLOWED. Challenging the Subordinate Court, Harur's order dated 02.02.2023 in I.A. No. 1 of 2022 in O.S. No. 49 of 2014 (a partition suit) dismissing the defendants'/petitioners' application to set aside the ex-parte order dated 15.04.2015 — dismissed below on the ground that plaintiff-side evidence was complete and the application, moved nearly nine years later, was meant to drag on the proceedings — the High Court held that the alleged family partition is embodied in a registered partition deed dated 27.02.2006 listed among the plaintiff-side documents in the suit; if such partition was in fact effected, the petitioners are entitled to prove it with evidence, and giving them that opportunity causes no prejudice to the respondents. In a partition suit all parties are treated as plaintiffs; setting aside the dismissal also avoids multiplicity of proceedings. The Trial Court's order was set aside, the revision allowed, with no costs and pending petitions closed.

¶1

CRP No. 4286 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 05-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

CRP No. 4286 of 2025 AND CMP NO. 22010 OF 2025

¶7

Sangeetha W/o Balan, Kandhagoundanur Village and Post, Pappireddypatti Taluk, Dharmapuri District

¶8

2.Mathesh S/o Late Chinnasamy, Kandhagoundanur Village and Post, Pappireddypatti Taluk, Dharmapuri District

¶9

3.Malathi

¶10

W/o Arivalagan, Jolliyur Village, Regadahalli Post, Pappireddypatti Taluk, Dharmapuri District

¶11

Petitioner(s)

¶12

¶13

Indirani W/o late Chinnasamy, Kandhagoundanur Village and Post, Pappireddypatti Taluk, Dharmapuri District

¶14

2.Chinnammal

¶15

W/o Late Pachaiyappan, Ammapalaiyam Village, Alapuram Post, Pappireddypatti Taluk, Dharmapuri District

¶16

3.Parvathi

¶17

W/o Raju, Agragarm X-Road, H.Agragaram Post, Harur Taluk,

¶18

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

CRP No. 4286 of 2025

Dharmapuri Dt

4.Jayakodi

W/o Raju, Solaikottai Village, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri Dt

¶23

5.Chennaiyan A.Periyaveeran, A.Velampatty Villag, H.Agragaram Post, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri Dt

¶24

6.Dhanam

¶25

W/O Rajendran, A.Velampatty Village, H.Agragaram Post, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri Dt

¶26

7.Sivakumar

¶27

S/o Raju, Agragarm X-Road, H.Agragaram Post, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri Dt

¶28

8.Siva S/o Raju, Agragarm X-Road, H.Agragaram Post, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri Dt

¶29

9.Rajendran

¶30

S/o Late Sundaram, A.Velampatty Village, H.Agragaram Post, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri Dt

¶31

Respondent(s)

¶32

CRP No. 4286 of 2025

¶33

PRAYER

¶34

To set aside the fair and decreetal order passed by the Subordinate Court, Harur, Dharmapuri Dated dated 02.02.2023 made in IA.No. 01 of 2022 in OS.No.49 of 2014 and to allow the Interlocutory application as prayed for or pass any other orders as may be deem fit and the interest of justice.

¶35

CRP No. 4286 of 2025

¶36

For Petitioner(s): J.Pradeep K.balakrishnan R.geethalakshmi

¶37

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

¶38

CRP No. 4286 of 2025

¶39

For Respondent(s): M/s.R.Jayaprakash R.S.Maitreya M.Pavitra S.Prathosh P.Manoj Pandian Saba Fathima For R6 And R9 M/s.V.Nicholas-ms/145/1969 N.E.A.Dinesh For R4 And R8 Notice Sent To Rr1, 2, 3, 5 And 7 - Service Awaited Pvt. Notice --Aos Not Filed

¶40

ORDER

¶41

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the fair

¶42

and decreetal order passed by the Subordinate Court, Harur, Dharmapuri, dated

¶43

02.02.2023 passed in I.A. No. 01 of 2022 in O.S. No.49 of 2014.

¶44

The brief facts of the case are:

¶45

The petitioners herein filed I.A No. 1 of 2022 in OS No. 49 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Harur, to set aside the ex-parte order dated 15.04.2015. Upon hearing both sides, the Trial Court holding that, already the plaintiff’s side evidence was completed and when the case is posted for defendant’s side evidence, nearly about 9 years later, the petitioners had filed the application with an intention to drag on the proceedings, dismissed the application. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

¶46

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

¶47

CRP No. 4286 of 2025

¶48

The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners had

¶49

gone to Bangalore for coolie work in order to earn their livelihood and hence, they could not attend the Court on the hearing date. Upon their return, when they were informed that they had been set ex-parte, they had filed the present application. But, without considering the above fact, the Trial Court dismissed the petitioners’ application. Hence, he prays to allow this petition.

¶50

The learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that the partition was held between the Chinnasamy and Jayakodi, the present present petitioners are legal heirs of said Chinnasamy. From Jayakodi, 9^th respondents purchased the suit property. Now, the petitioners come forward with present petition colluding with other respondents. Further, they were not inclined to participate the proceedings for 9 years but now come forward with application and the same was rightly dismissed by the Trial Court. The learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that as per the written statement submitted by the petitioners before the Trial Court that they are claiming ¼ share in the suit property including property purchased by the purchaser/9^th respondent. Hence, he raised objection to allow this petition.

¶51

Heard both sides.

¶52

A perusal of records show that the plaintiff/first respondent filed the

¶53

suit for partition as legal heir of Chinnasamy claiming ¼ share in the property. However, portion of suit property sold by Jayakodi/4th respondent to 6^th and 9^th

¶54

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

¶55

CRP No. 4286 of 2025

¶56

respondents herein. The suit property was in the name of Chinnasamy. If at all any partition held between the parties, they are entitled to prove the same since it is registered partition effected among family members. The said partition deed dated 27.02.2006 is shown as one of the documents in the suit on the side of the plaintiff. Therefore, if at all the partition already held between the parities they are entitled to prove the same with evidence. Therefore, giving opportunity to the defendants/petitioners would not cause any prejudice to the respondents. Since it is partition suit all the parties are treated as plaintiff. In order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings this Court is inclined to set aside the order passed in I.A No.1 of 2022 in OS No. 49 of 2014 by the Trial Court. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Case is allowed. No Costs. Pending petition, if any, is/are closed.

¶57

05-03-2026

¶58

pbl Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No To

¶59