Pathima Mary vs S.Santhi Jeevadasan
2021 Latest Caselaw 12324 Mad

                                                                                     C.R.P.(PD)No.523 of 2021

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                        DATED : 24.06.2021

                                                            CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

                                                   C.R.P(PD).No.523 of 2021


                     Pathima Mary                                                         ...Petitioner

                                                                 Vs

                     1.S.Santhi Jeevadasan
                     2.S.Sagaya Mary
                     3.Indira                                                             ...Respondents


                                     Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

                     India, to set aside the order dated 12.02.2020 made in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in

                     O.S.No.4 of 2020 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Nagapattinam and

                     consequently, allow the same.


                                       For Petitioner        :        Mr.T.Sai Krishnan

                                       For Respondents       :        Mr.V.Ramesh Kumar [For R1 & R2]
                                                                      No appearance [For R3]




                     1/6



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                 C.R.P.(PD)No.523 of 2021



                                                          ORDER

The plaintiff in O.S.No.4 of 2020, which is now pending on the file of

the Sub Court, Nagapattinam, is the revision petitioner herein.

2.The said suit was filed seeking a judgment and decree to pass a

preliminary decree with respect to one half share of partition of the suit item

Nos.1 and 2 and also for recovery of possession with respect to the 2nd item

of the A and B schedule property and also for recovery of a sum of

Rs.1,54,000/- per annum and for costs. The suit is pending. In the said suit,

the plaintiff had filed I.A.No.1 of 2020 seeking appointment of an Advocate

Commissioner to conduct the harvest with respect to the crops and sell the

same in appropriate TNCSC Ltd. Direct Purchase Centre in the presence of

the plaintiff and the defnedants. The said application came up for

consideration and by order dated 12.02.2021 it was dismissed. This had

given rise to the filing of the present Civil Revision Petition.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD)No.523 of 2021

3.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision

petitioner/plaintiff that the plaintiff and the third defendant are sisters and

that the first and second defendants are cultivating the crops in the lands

which have been mentioned to the schedule of the plaint. It had been stated

that the plaintiff is entitled to a share in the property and the crops are being

harvested in the said property and therefore it is only equitable that the

plaintiff gets a share in the sale proceeds of the harvested crops. For that

particular purpose, appointment of an Advocate Commissioner had been

sought for in whose presence, harvesting can be carried on and later on,

harvested crops can be sold in TNCSC Ltd. Direct Purchase Centre and the

proceeds thereof shared between the plaintiff and the defendants.

4.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the

respondents/defendants that the first and second respondents have entered

into an agreement of sale with one Anthonysamy, the husband of the

plaintiff/petitioner herein for purchase of the lands for a total consideration

of Rs.4,00,000/- and as advance, Rs.3,75,000/- had already been paid, but

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD)No.523 of 2021

the said Anthonysamy had not come forward to execute the sale deed and on

the other hand, had instituted the present suit as a arm twisting tactic. It is

stated that the application itself had been filed much after the harvesting

season had been completed and there are no crops to be harvested.

Therefore, it had been contended that the application has become

infructuous. It is also contented that the presence of an Advocate

Commissioner would only cause further frictions among the parties and

would not be a conducive method to be adopted.

5.Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

respondents, I am of the opinion that appointment of an Advocate

Commissioner may not serve the ends of justice. It may only lead to further

friction between the parties. They are already litigating in an adversary

proceeding. It is also seen from the records that all the parties are very close

relatives. It would only therefore be better that the respondents are placed

under an obligation to continue the harvesting, but however, to maintain

accounts both with respect to expenses incurred during the harvesting and

also with respect to the sale proceeds received from the harvested crops. If

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD)No.523 of 2021

at all the plaintiff succeeds in the suit for partition, then necessary accounts

can be reconciled and the plaintiff's share can be worked out at that

particular point of time.

6.Therefore, placing an obligation on the respondents/defendants to

maintain accounts, the Civil Revision Petition itself is disposed of. No

costs.

24.06.2021 cse Index:Yes/No Internet: Yes/No

To

The Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD)No.523 of 2021

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J,

cse

C.R.P.(PD)No.523 of 2021

24.06.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/