Dismissed¶19

Hamsath Bareena, v. a.M.Syed Ahammed

Madras HC2 Jun 2026CRP(MD)/1319/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissed as withdrawn; third-party petitioner claiming under final decree in O.S.No.55 of 1950 permitted to withdraw revision and pursue independent suit for declaration of title; Article 227 Constitution of India; challenge to order dated 07.01.2026 in I.A.No.09 of 2025 in O.S.No.57 of 2012, Subordinate Court, Ramanathapuram District; liberty of trial court confirmed; no costs; connected C.M.P(MD).No.6232 of 2026 closed; Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; Justice V. Lakshminarayanan; decision dated 02.06.2026.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the Civil Revision Petition granted; the liberty granted by the learned trial Judge in paragraph No.10 of the impugned order is confirmed (enabling the petitioner to pursue an independent suit); no costs; connected Miscellaneous Petition (C.M.P(MD).No.6232 of 2026) closed. ¶19

Hamsath Bareena, Vs a.M.Syed Ahammed — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, a third party claiming an independent right over the property under the allotment in the final decree in O.S.No.55 of 1950, could obtain relief in this revision, or must file an independent suit for declaration of title and consequential reliefs.

¶18

Court's answer

If the petitioner has an independent right over the property by virtue of the allotment made in the final decree passed in O.S.No.55 of 1950, then it is for the third party (civil revision petitioner) to file an independent suit for declaration of title and consequential reliefs.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

In view of the endorsement made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as withdrawn; the liberty already granted by the learned trial Judge in paragraph No.10 of the order is confirmed; no costs; the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, V. Lakshminarayanan, J.) challenging the fair and decretal order dated 07.01.2026 in I.A.No.09 of 2025 in O.S.No.57 of 2012 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ramanathapuram District. The petitioner, a third party to the suit, claimed an independent right over the property by virtue of an allotment in the final decree in O.S.No.55 of 1950. The Court observed that if that were so, it was for the petitioner to file an independent suit for declaration of title and consequential reliefs. On the counsel's endorsement, the revision was dismissed as withdrawn, the liberty granted by the trial Judge in paragraph No.10 of its order was confirmed, with no costs, and the connected C.M.P(MD).No.6232 of 2026 was closed.

¶1

C.R.P.(MD).No.1319 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 02.06.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

C.R.P.(MD).No.1319 of 2026 and C.M.P(MD).No.6232 of 2026

Hamsath Bareena

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.A.M.Syed Ahammed 2.Shahul Hammed (died) 3.A.M.Mohammed Sulthanul Aribin (died) 4.A.M.Abdul Malik 5.Sulthan Beevi 6.Ummulkir Sitthika 7.Majidul Ameena (died) 8.Jeenathulmaliya 9.Mohammmed Majid Nishabeevi 10.Ahamed Bais 11.S.I.A.Bousul Ameena 12.S.A.Ahamed Sabik 13.S.A.Jamin Mohaideen 14.S.A.Ahamed Mustah (Minor) rep., by his mother S.I.A.Bousul Ameena 15.A.M.Mohammed Saabi 16.Mohammed KagithaBeevi 17.Naina Mohammed Shahib 18.Mirbaha 19.Jamalmuath 20.G.Veerapandi 21.Andiyappan 22.Arumugam 23.Mohaideen Ibrahim Umma 24.Shahjakhan Beevi 25.Fathimabeevi 26.Nazeema Barvin 27.Fathima Thasrin Farzana ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records pertaining to the fair and decretal order dated

¶12

1/4

¶13

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

¶14

C.R.P.(MD).No.1319 of 2026

¶15

07.01.2026 passed in I.A.No.09 of 2025 in O.S.No.57 of 2012 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ramanathapuram District and set aside the same as illegal.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ayyanar Prem Kumar

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has an independent right over the property by virtue of the allotment made in the final decree passed in O.S.No.55 of 1950. If that were to be the case, then it is for the third party, civil revision petitioner, to file an independent suit for declaration of title and for consequential reliefs. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this revision to file an independent suit. He has also made an endorsement to that effect in the case bundle.

¶19

2.In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The learned trial Judge has already granted the liberty in paragraph No.10 of the order. The said liberty is confirmed.

¶20

No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶21

02.06.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Rmk

¶22

2/4

¶23

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

¶24

C.R.P.(MD).No.1319 of 2026

¶25

¶26