Madras High Court
Karuppaiyan vs Sudhakar on 23 October, 2024
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATE : 23.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
CRP(MD)No.1500 of 2024
and
CMP(MD)No.8846 of 2024
Karuppaiyan ... Petitioner/Respondent/Plaintiff
vs.
1.Sudhakar ... Respondent/ Petitioner / 3rd Party
2.Yasothaiammal
Ravichandran (died)
3.Ekambaram
4.Amutha
5.Minor Aravinthan
6.Minor Saleshwaran ... Respondents/defendants
(5th and 6th minor respondents
are rep.by their natural guardian
and mother/4th respondent)
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to set aside order allowing I.A No.108 of 2022 in O.S No.21 of 2008
on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, (PCR), Thanjavur
dated 09.01.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
For Petitioners : Mr.K.R.Laxman
For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Ramanathan for R1
R2, R3, R5 and R6 – No appearance
Ms.T.Susithra for Mr.S.Bharathy Kannan
for R4
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel
for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the fourth respondent.
The second respondent is served and her name was also printed in the
cause list. Yet, she has not chosen to enter appearance.
2.Karuppaiyan, the petitioner herein filed O.S No.21 of 2008 on
the file of the First Additional District Judge (PCR), Thanjavur seeking half
share of the suit schedule properties. It is not in dispute that “A” and “B”
schedule properties are ancestral properties. V.Karuppaiyan and
Periyasamy Pillai were born to Veeraiya Pillai. Both “A” and “B” schedule
properties were in the name of Veeraiya Pillai. Periyasamy Pillai passed
away leaving behind his wife Yasothaiammal and sons Ravichandran and
Ekambaram as his legal heirs. Therefore, the suit was instituted by the
revision petitioner herein against the legal heirs of Periyasamy Pillai.
During the pendency of the suit, Yosaithaiammal and Ravichandran also
passed away. That is how, Ravichandran's wife Amutha and her children
were brought on record as D4 to D6.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis The suit was instituted on
09.04.2008. Preliminary decree was passed on 14.12.2016 in the following
terms :
“1.that the suit is be and hereby partly allowed.
2.that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/2 share in item Nos.
1,2,4,7,8,9,12,13,14,15 and 17 of A Schedule properties
and Item Nos.1,3, 4 of B Schedule properties and the
plaintiff is not entitled to any share in item No.3,5,6,10,11
and 16 of A Schedule properties and item No.2 of B
Schedule properties and to that effect a preliminary
decree was passed.
3.that the parties are directed to divide the properties in 2
equal shares and allot 1 share to the plaintiff and put him
in separate possession of his respective shares failing
which the plaintiff is permitted to file final decree
application before this for the division of the properties”.
The plaintiff thereafter filed I.A No.1 of 2019 for passing final decree. In the
final decree petition, the first respondent herein, namely, Sudhakar filed I.A
No.108 of 2022 for impleading himself. The court below vide order dated
09.01.2023 allowed the impleading petition. Challenging the same, this
civil revision petition has been filed.
3.It is seen that Thiru.Ravichandran and Ekambaram, the sons of
Periyasamy Pillai executed sale deed dated 05.06.2008 (D No.1624 of
2008) on the file of the SRO, Vallam in favour of Mrs.Thenmozhiselvi
conveying 55 cents of land in S.No.186/4, Alakudi Village which was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
included as Item No.17 in Suit A schedule property. Vide Document No.
2503 of 2009 on 23.09.2009 on the file of the SRO, Vallam
Mrs.Thenmozhiselvi settled the same in favour of her son/the first
respondent herein. The judgment dated 14.12.2016 in O.S No.21 of 2008
granting preliminary decree has become final and it has not been put to
challenge. It is beyond dispute that Karuppaiyan, the revision petitioner
herein has half share in each of the items of the suit schedule. Therefore,
Ravichandran and Ekambaram could not have sold the entire property in
favour of Thenmozhiselvi vide sale deed dated 05.06.2008.
4.After Item No.17 of the “A” Schedule property was settled in his
favour, Sudhakar applied to the authorities concerned and put up a petrol
bunk. As on date, Sudhakar is running the same under Indian Oil
Corporation Limited in the name and style of “PDS Agencies”. Facing heat
due to the initiation of final decree proceedings, Sudhakar filed I.A No.108
of 2022 for allotment of property sold in favour of his mother to him. He
also filed I.A No.109 of 2022 for setting aside the preliminary decree. Both
the I.As were allowed on 09.01.2023. Questioning the said order,
Karuppaiyan filed CRP (MD)No.696 of 2023. The said CRP was
dismissed. Questioning the same, Karuppaiyan filed SLP No.8640 of 2024
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Notice has been ordered and it
is pending. When CRP(MD)No.1500 of 2024 questioning the order made
in I.A No.108 of 2022 came before me, I indicated to the parties on either
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
side to arrive at an amicable solution. I am happy to record that the
suggestion put forth by the court was accepted by both the parties.
5.Survey No.180/4B, Alakudi Village, Thanjavur Taluk measures
total extent of 55 cents. It has been measured in the presence of both the
parties. A rough sketch has been (not drawn on scale) made ready and it
has been signed by both the parties as well as their counsel. Copy of the
said sketch is annexed to this order. It shall form part of it. Sudhakar is
running a petroleum outlet in B,C,D,E,G,H and I. It measures 1150 square
meters. Karuppaiyan has no objection for Sudhakar to enjoy BCDEGHI
and for running his petrol bunk. Since the defendants had already
alienated Item No.17 of “A” Schedule and since Karuppaiyan has clear half
share in the said item, in order to give quietus to the outstanding issues
between the parties i.e. the petitioner on the one hand and the first
respondent on the other, it is declared that the property comprised in
ABCDEF as set out in the sketch belongs to Karuppaiyan, the revision
petitioner herein, in these proceedings itself and that the property
comprising in ABCDEF is his absolute property and that he can deal with it
in any manner he deems fit. It is also open to the parties herein to register
this order ; as and when, it is presented for registration, the jurisdictional
Registrar is directed to register the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.Sudhakar's mother had purchased 55 cents of land vide sale
deed dated 05.06.2008 from Ravichandran and Ekambaram. Such a sale
was clearly in excess of what the vendors were really entitled to. In fact, the
learned counsel for the revision petitioner brings it to my attention that the
sale was made in breach of the injunction order granted in favour of
Karuppaiyan in I.A No.47 of 2008. Thus, on account of the division of
Item No.17 of “A” schedule properties, Sudhakar has been put to loss. He
is entitled to compensate himself by seeking equity in the matter of the
other items of the suit schedule. Karuppaiyan informs this Court that he
would take steps for withdrawing SLP No.8640 of 2024.
7.The impugned order is sustained insofar as it impleads
Sudhakar as party to the final decree proceedings. In all other aspects, it is
set aside. Karuppaiyan is aged about 82 years. He is a senior citizen.
The court below is directed to dispose of I.A No.1 of 2019 on merits and in
accordance with law within a period of six months from the next hearing
date.
8.This civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Connected
miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
23.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
skm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
I Additional District and Sessions Judge, (PCR), Thanjavur
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
skm
and
23.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
