Madras High Court
Rajabathar vs Soundari Ammal on 18 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.1994 & 1995 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
C.M.A.Nos.1994 & 1995 of 2010
and
M.P.Nos.1 of 2010 & 1 of 2011
1.Rajabathar
2.Subramani
3.Malarvizhi
4.Vijayalakshmi
5.Sundari .. Appellants in both appeals
Vs.
1.Soundari Ammal
2.Krishnaveni Ammal
3.R.Ranganathan
4.Janakiraman
5.Kamala
6.Saraswathi
7.Lakshmi
8.Minor Murali
9.Nataraja Pillai
10.Ramakrishnan .. Respondents in CMA.No.1994/2010
1.Krishnaveni Ammal
2.R.Ranganathan
3.Janakiraman
4.Kamala
Page No.1/9
C.M.A.No.1994 & 1995 of 2010
5.Saraswathi
6.Lakshmi
7.Minor Murali
8.Soundari Ammal
9.Nataraja Pillai
10.Ramakrishnan .. Respondents in CMA.No.1995/2010
COMMON PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Order
43 Rule 1(u) of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated
22.12.2009 made in A.S.89 of 2006 and Cross Appeal in A.S.No.76 of 2008
respectively, on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Kancheepuram,
remanding the Judgement and Decree dated 30.08.2006 made in O.S.No.491
of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Munsiff Court, Kancheepuram.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Padmanabhan
For M/s.S.N.Mala
For Respondents : Mr.Prasanna Venkatesh
COMMON J U D G M E N T
The appellants herein are the plaintiffs 1 to 5, who filed a
suit in O.S.No.491 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Munsiff
Court, Kancheepuram. They have preferred this appeal challenging the
judgment passed in A.S.89 of 2006 and Cross Appeal in A.S.No.76 of 2008
respectively, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge at Kancheepuram,
Page No.2/9
C.M.A.No.1994 & 1995 of 2010
remanding the case in O.S.No.491 of 1999 to the file of the Principal District
Munsiff Court, Kancheepuram for fresh disposal.
2. The questions of law that arises for consideration are as
follows:
“(i). Whether the Lower Appellate Court committed
error in excising power of remand for the purpose of
impleading the legal heirs of the deceased Govindaraja
Naicker, without considering the fact that the earlier petition
in I.A.No.650 of 2003 was dismissed by the trial Court ?
(ii). Whether the lower appellate Court erroneously
remanded the case to the trial Court without considering the
fact that it is the second round of litigation ? and
(iii). Whether the Lower Appellate Court failed to
appreciate the purchase made by the defendant are pendent-in-
lite?”
The suit was filed for declaration to declare that the plaintiffs are the owners
Page No.3/9
C.M.A.No.1994 & 1995 of 2010
of the plaint mentioned property, and for recovery of possession from the
defendants 2 to 10, and for mense profits.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants / plaintiffs
submitted that one Murugappa Naicker had 2 sons and 1 daughter, in which
the elder son Govindaraja Naicker died and daughter Krishnaveni ammal is
the 1st defendant herein. The said Murugappa Naicker died in the year 1975.
Before his death Murugappa Naicker executed a Will through which life
interest was given to the 1st plaintiff / son, thereafter, the property would
devolve on the plaintiffs 2 to 5. Aggrieved by the Will, 2nd son of Govindaraja
Naicker has filed a suit in O.S.No.491 of 1999 on the file of the Principal
District Munsiff Court, Kancheepuram, in which the Will was declared as
genuine one and suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. But during the
pendency of the Suit proceedings, another son of Govindaraja Naicker and
his sister Krishnaveni Ammal sold some of the item to the defendants 2 to 9.
So the plaintiffs claimed recovery of possession from the said purchaser. But
the 2nd defendant contended that Govindaraja Naicker had two wifes and the
2nd son and daughter of the 2nd wife was not properly impleaded, because as
Page No.4/9
C.M.A.No.1994 & 1995 of 2010
per the Will she is also entitled for a right over the properties. The 3rd
defendant contended that he purchased property from the sister Krishnaveni
Ammal. He also raised objection that the legal heirs of the Govindaraja
Naicker is not properly impleaded.
4. After full trial, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed
for. Aggrieved by the judgment the 4th defendant has preferred an appeal in
A.S.No.89 of 2006 and cross objection was filed by the respondents 6 to 12,
in A.S.NO.76 of 2008. On hearing both sides, judgment was passed by the
First Appellate Court, concluding that the children born to Govindaraja
Naicker are necessary and proper parties to the suit but they were not brought
on record. Inadvertently, an application to implead the legal heirs was
dismissed by the trial Court which remains fatal to the fair disposal and final
adjudication of the dispute between the parties. Therefore, son and daughter
born to Govindaraja Naicker through Sagunthala are to be brought on record
for final adjudication. Therefore, the Lower appellate Court on considered
that this is the fit case for remand under Order 41 Rule 23(A) of CPC for
fresh disposal, after impleading the sons and daughters born to Govindaraja
Page No.5/9
C.M.A.No.1994 & 1995 of 2010
Naicker through Sagunthala. Aggrieved by the order the appellants/plaintiffs
have preferred this appeal.
5. At the time of the arguments both sides counsel admits
that the earlier litigation which went up to 2nd appeal in S.A.NO.971 of 1973.
As per the terms of the Will the 1st plaintiff, 1st defendant and the deceased
Govindaraja Naicker had only life interest. Thereafter, properties should goes
to his legal heirs. But Govindaraja Naicker and the Krishnaveni Ammal sold
some of the properties in favour of the defendants 2 to 9. Admittedly,
Govindaraja Naicker has two wifes and the 2nd wife Sagunthala is having a
son and daughter.
6. As per the contention of the defendants, only life interest
was given to the son Murugappa Naicker and thereafter right was given to
son and daughter born to them. So the legal heirs of the Govindaraja Naicker
properly has to be impleaded, in order to give fair and final adjudication
between the parties. Though the plaintiff admits that Govindaraja Naicker has
two wife but they are not admitting the right of the legal heirs. Further, they
Page No.6/9
C.M.A.No.1994 & 1995 of 2010
also contended that petition to implead the necessary parties was dismissed
by the trial Court so there is no necessity to implead them in the original suit
proceedings. But the First Appellate Court without appreciating this fact
erroneously remanded the matter to the trial Court to implead the parties.
Hence, he prayed to allow this appeal by setting aside the order passed by the
learned First Appellate Judge.
7. The learned First Appellate Judge observed that as per the
recitals of the Will it is clear that the children who will be born through his
sons alone can have absolute interest over the properties of the deceased. So
the Appellate Court ordered to implead the legal heirs of the 2nd wife of the
Govindaraja Naicker, whose 2nd marriage was performed even during the life
time of the Testator Murugappa Naicker. Assuming that as per the Will only
life interest was given to Govindaraja Naicker, then his son and daughter are
entitled to claim share in accordance with law.
8. Considering that the impleading petition was inadverently
dismissed by the trial Court, the First Appellate Court remanded the matter to
Page No.7/9
C.M.A.No.1994 & 1995 of 2010
the Trial Court in order to implead the legal heirs and for fresh disposal.
Since the parties are claiming right over the property based upon the Will,
the necessary parties / beneficiaries should be impleaded for better
adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. In order to decide the
declaration issue all the necessary parties have to be impleaded. Therefore,
the order of remand made by the learned First Appellate Judge is justifiable
one.
9. Accordingly both Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are
dismissed as devoid of merits and the order of the learned First Appellate
Judge in A.S.89 of 2006 and Cross Appeal in A.S.No.76 of 2008 is
confirmed. Accordingly, the Principal District Munsiff Court,
Kancheepuram, is directed to dispose the case in O.S.No.491 of 1999 within
a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No Costs.
18.02.2021
rri
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
Page No.8/9
C.M.A.No.1994 & 1995 of 2010
T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.
rri
C.M.A.Nos.1994 & 1995 of 2010
and
M.P.Nos.1 of 2010 & 1 of 2011
18.02.2021
Page No.9/9
