Madras High Court
Palanisamy vs Arumugam on 5 July, 2021
CRP(PD)No.29 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
CRP(PD)No.29 of 2019
and
CMP.No.323 of 2019
[Through Video Conferencing]
1.Palanisamy
2.P.Subramaniam
3.P.Sellamuthu
4.Deivanai
5.S.C.Chellamuthu
6.Arunachalam
7.Thulasimani ... Petitioners / Defendants 1 to 7
Vs.
1.Arumugam
2.Sathish Kumar
3.Mathan Kumar
4.Chellamuthu
5.Viswanathan
6.Easwari
7.Kolandasamy
8.Ammaniammal
9.Krishnamoorthy
10.Savitha
11.Chenniappan
12.Vijayapuri
Thangamuthu (Died)
13.Chenniappan
Ponnusamy (Died)
14.Periyasamy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
CRP(PD)No.29 of 2019
Chennimalai Gounder (Died)
15.Lakshmi
16.Govindasamy
17.Thangamuthu
18.Ammaniammal
19.Santhi ... Respondents / Defendants 8 to 26
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, seeking to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 01.11.2018
made in I.A.No.854 of 2018 in O.S.No.152 of 2010 on the file of the
Subordinate Court, Perundurai, Erode District.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Guruprasad
For Respondents : Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar
*****
ORDER
Heard arguments advanced by Mr.M.Guruprasad, learned counsel for
the revision petitioners/defendants 1-7 in O.S.No.152 of 2010 now pending on
the file of the Subordinate Court, Perundurai, Erode District and also
Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents 1-3/plaintiffs. The
other respondents are the defendants in the suit
2.The suit has been pending for more than 10 years. It has however
progressed. The trial has been completed. Evidence has been recorded. The
matter was posted for advancing arguments.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP(PD)No.29 of 2019
3.While the suit was pending on the file of Sub Court, Erode, a Sale
Deed dated 27.12.1995 was executed by the mother and sister of the 1 st
defendant in favour of Samiathal,. The said document had been marked as an
exhibit during the course of evidence.
4.By this Sale Deed, the plaintiffs acquired 1/3rd share, which share had
been purchased from the share of the mother and sister of the 1st defendant.
Subsequently, the mother had also executed a Release Deed in favour of the
defendants/revision petitioners herein. That document had also been marked as
an exhibit during the course of trial.
5.At the time of advancing arguments, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.854 of
2018, seeking to amend the plaint only in so far as the shares claimed with
respect to the properties mentioned in the Sale Deed dated 27.12.1995 as
referred above is concerned.
6.They claimed 1/3rd share in the said property. In the original plaint they
had claimed 1/9th share. They had included in the Schedule, the description of
the property as given in the Sale Deed. Therefore, they sought to amend the
plaint with respect to the share which they can claim in the particular property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP(PD)No.29 of 2019
7.I am not examining the evidentiary value of the sale deed of the
property or the execution of sale deed. The mother had executed on a
subsequent date, a Release Deed. These are all the issues to be decided by the
Trial Court.
8.I am confident that the learned Counsels before the trial Court would
raise and urge upon the learned Sub Judge to give a finding on all issues and
also the learned Sub Judge would atleast address the issues during the course
of judgment.
9.Having permitted the amendment to be carried out, in view of the
description of the property, the defendants are also permitted to file additional
written statement if they require. If it is filed, then a specific time limit may be
fixed by the learned Judge.
10.Since these facts emerge from the documents, which documents are
already marked as exhibits and on which examination of witnesses had already
been conducted, further examination is not required.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP(PD)No.29 of 2019
11.The learned Judge will necessarily have also to examine Order XIV
and further examine whether issues will have to be re-framed or not.
12.I am confident that any unnecessary adjournments sought not by any
of the counsels before the Trial Court. I would also direct the learned Judge to
dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.
13.With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.
Order under revision stands as it is. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition also stands closed. No order as to costs.
05.07.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
ssi
To
1.The III Additional District and Sessions Court,
Cuddalore Camp at Virudhachalam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP(PD)No.29 of 2019
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
ssi
CRP(PD)No.29 of 2019
05.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
