Madras High Court
Mohan vs L.Janakiraman on 20 December, 2021
CRP No.2830 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
CRP No.2830 of 2021 and
CMP.No.20515 of 2021
Jamuna Rani (died)
Mohan
M.Harikesh
M.Jayapreethi ... Petitioners
(Rep. by their father/power agent P.Mohan)
(Petitioners 2 to 4 brought on record as
LRs of the deceased P1 viz., Jamuna Rani
vide Court order dated 25.11.2021 made in
CMP.No.19263 of 2021 in CRP.SR.No.13512/2021)
Vs
1.L.Janakiraman
2.D.Vasanthi
3.D.Nathiya
4.D.Barath Kumar
5.B.Nirmala
6.B.Sateesh ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.1397 of 2019 dated
24.06.2019 on the file of the XVII Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai.
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No.2830 of 2021
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Vijayaganesh
ORDER
The petitioner challenges the decree in O.S.No.1397 of 2019
obtained by way of a joint compromise amongst the respondents herein. The
petitioner is daughter of one Loganathan and Podhu Ammal. Claiming that the
said property was settled on her mother by her father Kuppusamy Udayar and
that she would be entitled to her share in the property on the death of her
mother on 06.01.2018, the plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.6586 of 2019
seeking partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share in the suit
properties. The said suit is resisted by the respondents herein, who are the
defendants contending that there is a compromise decree in O.S.No.1397 of
2019 between the respondents, who are also the legal representatives of
Podhu Ammal.
2.According to the petitioner, Podhu Ammal died leaving behind
three sons and one daughter viz. the plaintiff in O.S.No.6586 of 2019
suppressing her existence the son Janakiraman and heirs of Dillibabu and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No.2830 of 2021
Baskar, the other two sons who, according to the respondents, had pre-
deceased their mother obtained a compromise decree and therefore, the said
compromise decree is not valid and binding on her. On the above contentions,
the petitioner seeks to have the compromise decree set aside invoking the
supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India. I do not think such an exercise is required at all. An instrument or a
decree has to be set aside in the manner known to law, only if the plaintiff is
prevented from exercising her rights or obtaining her rights without having the
instrument set aside. A person, who is not a party to a decree or an instrument
can very well ignore the instrument or a decree and proceed to establish his or
her right by way of a suit. Such a decree or instrument cannot be projected
against him or her, in such a suit filed by him or her seeking to establish his or
her title. As could be seen from the copy of the decree in O.S.No.1397 of
2019, the plaintiff is not a party to the suit. Moreover, the said suit is
restricted to only one item of property situate at Otteri, Chennai.
3.As already pointed out, it is wholly unnecessary for the plaintiff
to have the decree set aside. Hence, this revision is wholly unnecessary and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No.2830 of 2021
the same is dismissed, leaving it open to the legalheirs of the plaintiff to
contend that the suit decree in O.S.No.1397 of 2019 is not binding on them in
so far as the share of the plaintiff in the suit property. No costs. Consequently,
the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
20.12.2021
vs
Index: Yes/No
Speaking order / Non speaking order
To:
1.The XVII Additional City Civil Judge,
Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No.2830 of 2021
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
vs
CRP No.2830 of 2021 and
CMP.No.20515 of 2021
20.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
