Madras High Court
Rukmani vs Periyasamy on 25 April, 2023
C.R.P.(MD)No.731 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.R.P.(MD)No.731 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.3977 of 2021
Rukmani .. Petitioner
Versus
1.Periyasamy
2.Chandrasekaran .. Respondents
Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the
judgment and decree, dated 10.02.2021, passed in I.A.No.244 of 2020 in O.S.No.209
of 2014, by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sukumar
For R1 : Mr.R.Suiryanarayanan
For R2 : No Appearance
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order,
dated 10.02.2021, passed in I.A.No.244 of 2020 in O.S.No.209 of 2014, by the
learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.731 of 2021
2.The petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.209 of 2014 before the
District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Peraiyur. Initially, the first
respondent has filed O.S.No.137 of 2012 against the petitioner herein before the
District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam, for declaration and for other reliefs.
Subsequently, the said suit has been transferred to the District Munsif-cum-Judicial
Magistrate Court, Peraiyur and renumbered as O.S.No.209 of 2014.
3.The petitioner is the estranged wife of Late.Pandian. It appears that was a
marital discord between the petitioner and her late husband Pandian, who died on
14.02.2011 during the pendency of C.M.S.A.No.12 of 2009 before this Court.
4.The facts on record indicate that the petitioner's husband had originally filed
H.M.O.P.No.131 of 2001 to dissolve the marriage with the petitioner. The said
H.M.O.P. was also allowed by the learned III Additional Sub Judge, Madurai. It
appears that the petitioner herein had filed H.M.C.M.A.No.4 of 2007 before the
Additional District Court, Madurai, wherein the order passed in H.M.O.P.No.131 of
2001 was set aside and the appeal was allowed on 05.09.2008. Challenging the
same, a further appeal was filed by the petitioner's husband in C.M.S.A.No.12 of
2009 before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.731 of 2021
5.During the pendency of the above appeal, the petitioner's husband died on
14.02.2011. It appears that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Family
Court, the petitioner's late husband has executed a Will in favour of the first
respondent, who happens to be his brother, on 21.05.2001. Meanwhile, the
petitioner appears to have disposed of the assets in favour of the second respondent
on 08.06.2011. Under these circumstances, the first respondent herein filed I.A.No.
244 of 2020 to implead the second respondent herein as second defendant in the suit.
6.By the impugned fair and decreetal order, dated 10.02.2021, the learned
District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur, has allowed the application filed
by the first respondent herein for impleading the second respondent as second
defendant in the suit. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:-
''4.jPHT:
chpikapay; eilKiw rl;lk; MHlH 1 &10(2) Court may strike
out or add parties.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either
upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may
appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly
joined, whether as Plaintiff or Defendant, be struck out, and that the name, of
any person who ought to have been joined, whether as Plaintiff or Defendant,
or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the
Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the
questions involved in the suit, be added.
,k;kDtpd; kDjhuH mry; tof;fpy; thjpahthH. mry; tof;fpy;
kDjhuuhdtH> vjpHkDjhuH kPJ tpsk;Gif kw;Wk; RthjPd ghpfhuk;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.731 of 2021
Nfhhp tof;F jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;L> Nkw;gb tof;fhdJ
vjpHkDjhuH/gpujpthjp jug;G gp.rh.1 FWf;F tprhuizf;fhf epYitapy;
,Ue;jNghJ 08.06.2011k; Njjpapy; vjpHkDjhuH mthpd; mf;fh kfDk;>
cj;Njr 2tJ vjpHkDjhuhfpa re;jpuNrfH vd;gtUf;F 1tJ mapl;l
nrhj;ij fpiuak; nra;J nfhLj;Js;shH. Nkw;gb Mtzk; gp.rh.M.3
Mf FwpaPL nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. Nkw;gb cj;Njr gpujpthjpahdtH fle;j
08.06.2011k; Njjpa fpiua Mtzj;ij kWf;ftpy;iy. Nkw;gb
08.06.2011k; Njjpa fpiua MtzkhdJ ey;y vz;zj;jpy;
cUthf;fg;gl;ljh? ,y;iyah? vd;gjid ,j;jUzj;jpy; tpthjpf;f
Ntz;bajpy;iy. tof;fpd; 1tJ mapl;l nrhj;jhdJ ,t;tof;F
jhf;fy; nra;tjw;F Kd;dNu gpujpthjpahdtH 1tJ cj;Njr
gpujpthjpf;F fpiuak; nra;J nfhLj;Js;sij xg;Gf;nfhs;fpwhH.
jug;gpdHfSf;fpilNa cs;s G+ry;fis KOikahf
jPHkhdpg;gjw;Fk;> mry; tof;fpy; voTs;s tpdhf;fs; midj;jpw;Fk;
KbT fhzNtz;Lk; vd;gjw;fhfTk;> Nkw;gb cj;Njr gpujpthjpia
mry; tof;fpy; jug;gpduhf NrHf;f Ntz;baJ mtrpakhFk;. kDjhuH
kDtpy; $wpAs;s fhuzq;fs; Vw;Wf;nfhs;sf; $baitahfTk;>
ek;gj;jFe;jjhfTk; cs;sJ. kDjhuH mtuJ tof;fpid ep&gzk;
nra;tjw;F xU tha;gG
; mspf;f Ntz;baJ
mtrpakhfpwJ. ,k;kDtpid mDkjpg;gjhy; vjpHkDjhuUf;F
vt;tpj ,og;Gk; Vw;gl Nghtjpy;iy. ,k;kDthdJ fhyjhkjhf
jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ vd;fpd;w fhuzj;jpw;fhf kl;LNk js;Sgb
nra;a ,ayhJ. Mifahy; ,k;kDtpid vjpHkDjhuH
nryTj;njhifAld; mDkjpf;fyhk; vd KbT nra;ag;gLfpwJ.
Kbthf> ,k;kDtpd; kDjhuH. vjpHkDjhuUf;F kD
nryTj;njhifahf &.500j;ij tUfpd;w 11.02.2021 md;Wf;Fs; nrYj;j
Ntz;LnkdTk;> jtWk;gl;rj;jpy; ,k;kDthdJ jhkhf js;Sgb
MfptpLk; vd cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ. miof;f tha;jh : 12.02.2021.''
7.The issue that arises for consideration in the present Civil Revision Petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.731 of 2021
is, whether the Trial Court has erred in allowing the application filed by the first
respondent for impleading the second respondent as second defendant in the suit.
8.The fact remains that a Will has been executed in favour of the first
respondent by Late.Pandian, the husband of the petitioner on 21.05.2001. That apart,
the petitioner has reportedly sold the property to the second respondent on
08.06.2011.
9.In my view, the Trial Court has not committed any error while allowing the
application for impleading the second respondent as second defendant in the suit.
The first respondent may have a case for impleading the second respondent to set
aside the sale that was made in favour of the second respondent herein. Therefore,
the present Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
10.Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2014, the learned District
Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur, is directed to proceed with the trial and
dispose the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of nine
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
NCC : Yes/No 25.04.2023
Index : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.731 of 2021
Internet : Yes/No
smn2
To
The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur.
C.SARAVANAN, J.
smn2
Order made in
C.R.P.(MD)No.731 of 2021
25.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
