Madras High Court
Smt.Govindammal vs Balamurugan on 5 February, 2021
CRP(MD)No.149 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.02.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
CRP(MD)No.149 of 2021
and
CMP(MD)No.919 of 2021
Smt.Govindammal, (Died)
Marimuthu ... Petitioner
vs.
Balamurugan ... Respondent
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to call for the records relating to the fair and
decreetal order dated 30.09.2020 made in O.S.No.178 of 2016 on the file
of the Subordinate Judge, Uthamapalayam and to set aside the same as
far as this petitioner is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.S.Ponnaiah
ORDER
The revision petition has been filed to call for the records relating
to the fair and decreetal order dated 30.09.2020 made in O.S.No.178 of
2016 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Uthamapalayam and to set
aside the same as far as this petitioner is concerned.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(MD)No.149 of 2021
2.The brief facts of the case is that the husband of the 1st defendant
namely, Nagaraj borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the
respondent/plaintiff on 26.10.2013 and agreed to repay the same with
interest at the rate of 24% per annum and executed a promissory note
dated 26.10.2013 in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Thereafter,
inspite of repeated demand made by the respondent/plaintiff, the said
Naagaraj failed to repay the loan and finally he died on 10.06.2015 due
to illness. During the life time of the said Nagaraj, the 1 st defendant/wife
of Nagaraj namely, Govindammal obtained a settlement deed on
18.08.2014 from the said Nagaraj for all the properties belonged to him
worth about Rs.30 lakhs. Thereafter, on 23.07.2016, the said
Govindammal executed a sham and nominal settlement deed in favour of
her brother namely, Marimuthu/petitioner herein for all the properties
which were acquired by her from her husband. The respondent herein
filed the above suit in O.S.No.178 of 2016 against the said Govindammal
for recovery of the loan amount due by the said Nagaraj. Pending suit,
the said Govindammal also died on 10.03.2017 and all the properties
were transferred to the petitioner/Marimuthu and for proper adjudication,
the said Marimuthu was added as a 2nd defendant in the suit. The learned
Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the
suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Aggrieved over the same, the
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(MD)No.149 of 2021
revision petitioner who was impleaded as 2nd defendant in the above suit
has filed the present revision petition.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the actual
borrower in the suit namely, Nagaraj died on 10.06.2015 before filing of
the suit on 22.10.2016 and his wife/1st defendant died pending suit
without any legal heirs in the family and no movable or immovable
properties of their own left over after their death. He would further state
that the present petitioner is neither a joint borrower along with the
principal debtor nor an inheritor or legal heir to the property of the debtor
and the petitioner has been impleaded as 2nd defendant in the suit without
any legal binding and the suit was decreed against him which resulted in
miscarriage of justice and therefore, he would pray for setting aside the
judgment passed in the suit and to allow the revision petition.
4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the order
going to be passed, notice to the respondent is not necessary.
5.It is an admitted fact by both parties that the deceased Nagaraj
has executed Ex.A4 settlement deed dated 18.08.2014 in favour of his
wife/1st defendant in respect of the properties and as per Ex.A8 registered
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(MD)No.149 of 2021
settlement deed dated 23.06.2016, the 1st defendant in turn executed the
settlement deed in favour of her brother/2nd defendant in respect of the
properties of the deceased Nagaraj. The 2nd defendant at the time of his
cross examination has categorically admitted that the properties of the
deceased Nagaraj lies in his hands as per Ex.A8 settlement deed. When
the matter came up for maintainability before this Court, it was stated by
the learned counsel for the petitioner that the settlement deed was given
prior to the filing of the suit and therefore, this Court opined that since
there was no nexus between the petitioner and the respondent, even then,
it directed the Registry to number the revision to find out the veracity of
the submission of the petitioner that the judgment and decree of the trial
Court is apparently illegal. The specific case of the respondent is that
after issuance of the promissory note, settlement deed was executed by
Nagaraj in the name of his wife namely, Govindammal and Govindammal
has executed a settlement in favour of the present petitioner who is her
brother and therefore, this revision petition is not maintainable.
6.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(MD)No.149 of 2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
bala/msa
NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic,
a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy,
shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
The Sub Judge,
Uthamapalayam.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(MD)No.149 of 2021
J.NISHA BANU, J.
bala/msa
ORDER MADE IN
CRP(MD)No.149 of 2021
DATED : 05.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
