Madras High Court
Suresh Kumar vs Deviannan on 8 January, 2021
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.3228 & 3229 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.01.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.3228 & 3229 of 2015
and M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2015
1. Suresh Kumar
2. Rajeswari
3. Shanthi ... Petitioners
in both CRPs
Vs.
1. Deviannan
2. Raju
3. Thilagavathi ... Respondents
in C.R.P.No.3228 of 2015
1. Deviannan
2. Raju
3. Kandasamy
4. Vasanthi ... Respondents
in C.R.P.No.3229 of 2015
Prayer in C.R.P.No.3228 of 2015:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal
order dated 16.04.2015 passed in I.A.No.41 of 2014 in A.S.No.5 of 2012 on
the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.3228 & 3229 of 2015
Prayer in C.R.P.No.3229 of 2015:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal
order dated 16.04.2015 passed in I.A.No.42 of 2014 in A.S.No.6 of 2012 on
the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal.
For Petitioners
in both CRPs : Mr.S.Saravana Kumar
For Respondents
in C.R.P.No.3228 of 2015
For R1 & R2 : No appearance
For R3 : Mr.C.Jagadish
For Respondents
in C.R.P.No. 3229 of 2015
For R1 & R2 : No appearance
For R3 & R4 : Mr.C.Jagadish
COMMON ORDER
These revision petitions are arising out of the fair and decreetal
orders dated 16.04.2015 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge,
Namakkal, in I.A.Nos.41 & 42 of 2014 in A.S.Nos.5 & 6 of 2012,
respectively thereby dismissing the petitions filed by the petitioners to
implead themselves as parties to the appeal proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.3228 & 3229 of 2015
2. The respondents 1 & 2 are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1040 of
2004 and they are the defendants in O.S.No.39 of 2007. The respondents 1
& 2 are the brothers. Initially they filed suit for injunction in respect of their
share in the property derived from their ancestors as against their brother's
wife viz., Thilagavathi. The suit in O.S.No.39 of 2007 filed by the
respondents 3 & 4 in C.R.P.No.3229 of 2015 for injunction as against the
respondents 1 & 2 herein in respect of the property which was purchased by
them from the respondents 1 & 2 brother's wife viz., Thilagavathi, the third
respondent in C.R.P.No.3228 of 2015.
3. The suit in O.S.No.1040 of 2004 filed by the respondents 1 & 2
was dismissed and the suit in O.S.No.39 of 2007 filed by the respondents 3
& 4 in C.R.P.No.3229 of 2015 was allowed. Aggrieved by the same the
respondents 1 & 2 herein filed two appeal suits in A.S.Nos.5 of 2012 and 6
of 2012 respectively. When both the appeals were pending, the petitioners
who are happened to be the son and daughters of the first respondent herein,
filed petitions to implead themselves as respondents in the appeals.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.3228 & 3229 of 2015
4. They filed these petitions on the ground that both the suit
schedule properties belonged to their grand father and they are ancestral
properties. Therefore, they have shares over the said properties. In respect
of the suit properties both the suits were filed and aggrieved by the
judgment and decree, the present appeals were filed. Now only they came to
know about the pendency of the above said appeals. Therefore for the
effective participation in the appeal, since they are having share in the
properties, they wanted to implead themselves as parties in the appeals.
5. On perusal of records, it revealed that in both the suits, the
schedule mentioned properties belongs to the first and second respondents'
father. Originally their father had three sons. The third respondent in
C.R.P.No.3228 of 2015 is the wife of the first and second respondents'
brother. He died long back. The respondents 1 & 2 are having 2/3 share in
the suit properties and in respect of 1/3 share concerned, the third
respondent sold out her share in favour of the respondents 3 & 4 in
C.R.P.No.3229 of 2015. Therefore, the respondents 1 & 2 filed the suit for
injunction as against the third respondent in C.R.P.No.3228 of 2015 in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.3228 & 3229 of 2015
respect of the 2/3 share of the suit properties. At the same time, the
purchasers viz., the respondents 3 & 4 in C.R.P.No.3229 of 2015 filed suit
for injunction in respect of 1/3 share, which was purchased by them from
the third respondent in C.R.P.No.3228 of 2015.
6. The suit filed by the respondents 1 & 2 dismissed and the suit
filed by the respondents 3&4 in C.R.P.3228 of 2015 was allowed.
Aggrieved by the same, the respondents 1 & 2 filed appeal suits in A.S.Nos.
5 & 6 of 2012 respectively. Admittedly, both the suits filed for injunction.
Therefore, the petitioners absolutely had no role in the suit filed for
injunction and if the petitioners have any share in the suit properties, they
can very well adjudicate separately that too after the life time of the first
respondent herein viz., their father, since they cannot claim any right over
the properties during their father's life time. Therefore, the trial Court
rightly dismissed the petitions and this Court does not find any infirmity or
illegality in the order passed by the Court below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.3228 & 3229 of 2015
7. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
08.01.2021
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.3228 & 3229 of 2015
To
1. The Subordinate Judge,
Namakkal.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.3228 & 3229 of 2015
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.3228 & 3229 of 2015
and M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2015
08.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
