Dismissed

Antony Manacksa v. Jothi Lawrence

Madras HC19 Jan 2026CRP(MD)/61/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging an order allowing the impleadment of a third party who claimed a share in ancestral joint family properties. The High Court held that for complete adjudication in a partition suit, all co-sharers are necessary parties.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Costs to the respondent. Connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

Antony Manacksa Vs Jothi Lawrence — Partition | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRP(MD). No.61 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 19.01.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶6

CRP(MD). No.61 of 2026 and CMP(MD) No.334 of 2026

Antony Manacksa

... Petitioner

1.Jothi Lawrence

2.Xavier Jenitta ... Respondents

¶12

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 13.11.2025 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S.No. 212 of 2022 on the file of the Learned Subordinate Court, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District and to set aside the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sasikumar

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order

¶16

made in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S.No.212 of 2022 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District, dated 13.11.2025. 1/5

¶17

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

¶18

CRP(MD). No.61 of 2026

¶19

2.The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the second respondent is the defendant in the above suit. The first respondent is a third party to the suit. The suit had been filed for the relief of partition and for other reliefs.

¶20

3.Pending suit, the first respondent, who is a third party to the suit, had filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S.No.212 of 2022 to implead him as a party defendant in the suit on the ground that since the suit property is his ancestral property, being a sibling to the parties, he is entitled for a share in the suit property. The Court below, vide order, dated 13.11.2025, had allowed the said application, by holding that for complete and effective adjudication and passing of a binding decree, the first respondent/third party is necessary to be impleaded as a party in the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

¶21

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds of Revision would

¶22

2/5

¶23

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

¶24

CRP(MD). No.61 of 2026

¶25

contend that already family partition had taken place between the parties and as such, the first respondent has no right over the suit property. Hence, he prays for appropriate orders.

¶26

5.This Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. Since no adverse orders are going to be passed in this petition, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

¶27

6.Admittedly, the suit had been filed by the petitioner against the second respondent for partition and in the said suit, the first respondent claiming right over the suit property has filed an application to implead him as party defendant. It is to be noted that in a suit for partition, all cosharers, who have a semblance of right, title, or interest in the suit properties, are necessary parties, since any decree passed in their absence will not bind them and would give rise to multiplicity of proceedings.

¶28

7.The records reveal that the proposed party is a sibling of the parties to the suit and claims a share in the ancestral/joint family

¶29

3/5

¶30

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

¶31

CRP(MD). No.61 of 2026

¶32

properties, which are the subject matter of the suit. Therefore, the presence of the first respondent is essential for the complete and effective adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. The order passed by the Court below in this line is correct. This Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below. The trial Court had rightly allowed such application, which does not warrant any interference of this Court.

¶33

8.In the result, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No

¶34

costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶35

Speaking	: Yes / No	19.01.2026
NCC	: Yes / No
Internet	: Yes / No
Index	: Yes / No
mm

¶36

¶37

The Subordinate Judge, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District.

¶38

4/5

¶39

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

¶40

CRP(MD). No.61 of 2026

¶41

N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

¶42

¶43

CRP(MD). No.61 of 2026

¶44

19.01.2026

¶45

5/5

¶46

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

Antony Manacksa v. Jothi Lawrence

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Antony Manacksa v. Jothi Lawrence

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Sami Veerappa Vs Muruganantham

Jayakumar Vs Chandrakumar

Sudalai Madasamy Vs Sathiya Sugumar

C.Kannapiran Vs S.Paul Pandi Nadar (Died) 1. Backiyam Ammal

Nathiya Vs K. Rengarajan

Malaichamy Vs The District Collector