Madras High Court
Rajkumar vs V.Krishnaveni on 7 November, 2023
C.R.P(MD)Nos.1643 & 2301 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
C.R.P(MD)Nos.1643 & 2301 of 2019
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.8576 & 12090 of 2019
C.R.P(MD)No.1643 of 2019
1.Rajkumar
2.R.Subhashini .... Petitioners
.vs.
1.V.Krishnaveni
2.Solairaj
3.Pankajavalli
4.Santhanamari
5.Lakshmi
6.R.Vijayakumar
7.R.Anand Prabhu ....Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
20.02.2019 passed in I.A.No.82/2018 in O.S.No.24/2018 on the file of
the Additional District Court, Virudhunagar.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.1643 & 2301 of 2019
For Petitioners :Mrs.Vijayakumari Natarajan
For R1 :Mr.S.Ramesh
For R2 :Mr.S.Vellaichamy
For R3, R6 & R7 :Mr.H.Arumugam
For R4 & R5 :No appearance
C.R.P(MD)No.2301 of 2019
1.R.Vijayakumar
2.R.Anand Prabhu .... Petitioners
.vs.
1.V.Krishnaveni
2.Solairaj
3.Rajkumar
4.Pankajavalli
5.Santhanamari
6.Lakshmi
7.R.Subhashini ....Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in
I.A.No.82/18 in O.S.No.24/2018 dated 20.02.2019, on the file of the
Additional District Judge, Virudhunagar.
For Petitioners :Mr.H.Arumugam
For R1 :Mr.S.Ramesh
For R2 :Mr.S.Vellaichamy
For R3 & R7 :Mrs.Vijayakumari Natarajan
For R4, R5 & R6 :No appearance
2/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.1643 & 2301 of 2019
COMMON ORDER
******************
These two revisions have been filed challenging the orders in
I.A.No.82 of 2018 in O.S.No.24 of 2018 on the file of the Additional
District Judge, Virudhunagar. The said application was taken out by the
plaintiff seeking to implead the petitioners and the 7th respondent in
C.R.P(MD)No.2301 of 2019 as defendants 6 to 8 in the suit. The suit is
one for partition and separate possession. It appears that, originally
partition was sought in respect of certain properties and thereafter, in the
year 2012 the plaintiff amended the plaint and included further items in
the suit schedule.
2. Though the trial proceeded with and the trial Court has also
reserved judgment at that stage, the present I.A.No.82 of 2018 came to be
filed by the plaintiff seeking to implead the proposed parties, out of
which, two of them, who are the grand children of the plaintiff and one
Subasini, who is the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff. The defendants 1 to
3 arrayed in the suit are the children of the plaintiff and the defendants 4
& 5 are the purchasers of certain items of the property from the
defendants 1 to 3.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.1643 & 2301 of 2019
3. Pending suit, it is seen that an application in I.A.No.761 of 2012
was filed seeking to include certain properties in the suit and the said
application came to be allowed. Thereafter, the plaintiff has taken out an
application in I.A.No.82 of 2018 seeking to implead the proposed parties,
namely daughter-in-law and grand-sons of the plaintiff, so that, it will
avoid multiplicity of the proceedings and the suit will also not be
dismissed on a technical ground of non-joinder of proper and necessary
parties.
4. The said application was resisted by the second defendant
namely one of the sons Rajkumar as well as the 3rd defendant and
proposed defendants 7 & 8 on the ground that the application was liable
to be dismissed as it came to be filed belatedly, that too, after the case
was reserved for judgment. Further, it is stated that the properties
belonging to the defendants 6 to 8 are their self acquired properties and
they are not available for partition and therefore, the proposed parties
need not be impleaded.
5. The second defendant filed a separate counter which was
adopted by the respondents 3 & 7 wherein, it is stated that the application
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.1643 & 2301 of 2019
cannot be maintained and it is reiterated in the said counter also that the
properties belonging to the proposed respondents 7 & 8 are their self
acquired properties and they cannot be included in the suit for partition.
6. The trial Court, finding some of the items of the suit schedule
properties standing in the name of the proposed parties and they are the
only legal heirs of the second and third defendants, allowed the
application and held that to adjudicate the issues involved in the suit,
they are necessary and proper parties in the suit, without whose presence
no effective adjudication can take place. The trial Court has also held in
favour of the application for impleadment citing the fact that the suit was
very much pending and even a preliminary decree has not been passed
and therefore, it will not alter the character of the suit. Aggrieved by the
said order allowing the impleading application, the grand sons namely
the respondents 7 and 8 in I.A.No.82 of 2018 have preferred C.R.P.
(MD)No.2301 of 2019 and C.R.P(MD)No.1643 of 2019 has been filed
by the second defendant, Rajkumar and one of the proposed parties
namely the proposed 6th defendant. Both these revisions have been filed
challenging the order in I.A.No.82/2018 on the ground that the
application has been taken out belatedly and that the proposed parties are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.1643 & 2301 of 2019
not neither proper nor necessary parties and that they cannot be treated as
co-owners and their properties be treated as joint family properties
available for partition amongst the legal heirs of the Late Veerachamy
Naidu and Krishnaveni.
7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioners in both as well as the counsel for respondents and perused the
records including the order impugned in the two revisions.
8. The suit is one for partition. Originally, the mother filed a suit
against her children and two of the purchasers, who had purchased the
properties from her children, claiming that certain items of the properties
were properties of her husband and that they were available for partition
and that she was entitled to a share in the properties.
9. Pending suit, it is seen that an application in I.A.No.761 of 2012
was filed seeking to include certain properties in the suit and the said
application came to be allowed. Subsequently, certain items of the
properties were included and in the included properties, right of the
proposed defendants comes into play. It is the specific case of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.1643 & 2301 of 2019
proposed parties that the properties are their self acquired properties and
they are not available for partition. Unfortunately, in I.A.No.761 of
2012, the properties belonging to them have been permitted to be
included in the suit for partition and subsequently, before the trial Court,
the matter was also eserved for judgment. It has dawned on the plaintiff
that the suit may be dismissed on a technical ground of non-joinder
raised in the written statement filed after the amendment application.
Therefore, it is the basis on which the plaintiff has sought to implead the
proposed defendants. Though the application has been resisted by the
proposed defendants, I am of the opinion that it is only in their interest
that they are allowed to contest the suit and disprove the case of the
plaintiff that their properties are not available for partition. They would
also prevent multiplicity of proceedings.
10. No prejudice would be caused to the proposed parties if the
impleading application is allowed as the properties belonging to them
have been included as certain items of the suit properties, by way of an
application in I.A.No.761 of 2012. The order in the said application has
become final. I do not see any perversity in the findings of the trial
Court directing to implead the proposed parties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.1643 & 2301 of 2019
11. In fine, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. It is
brought to my attention that amendment has already been carried out.
Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2010 and subsequently
transferred to the file of the Additional District Court, Virudhunagar and
renumbered as O.S.No.24 of 2018, the trial Court shall direct the newly
added defendants to file their written statement within four weeks from
the receipt of the copy of this order and shall have the suit tried
expeditiously. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
NCC:Yes/No 07.11.2023
AM
To
The Additional District Court,
Virudhunagar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.1643 & 2301 of 2019
P.B.BALAJI,J.
am
C.R.P(MD)Nos.1643 & 2301 of 2019
07.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
