Madras High Court
Manoharan vs Kantha on 3 September, 2024
C.R.P.No.2380 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.No.2380 of 2024
Manoharan
S/o late Gopal .. Petitioner
-vs-
1. Kantha, W/o Samuel
2. Kumudha, W/o Elumalai
3. Perumal, S/o late Arumugam
4. Elumalai, S/o late Arumugam
5. Saraswathi, W/o Balan
6. Ebher Muralidharan, S/o late Balan
7. Kiresha, W/o Arunodayan
8. Ruban, S/o late Samuel
9. Ranjith Kumar, S/o late Samuel
10.Jebakar, S/o late Samuel
11.Loganathan, S/o late Gopal
12.Mrs.Jayalakshmi, W/o Paul Edward
13.Vasantha, W/o Mariasusai
14.Dhanasekaran, S/o late Gopal
15.Viviyan, W/o late Raja
16.Minor Reny rep.by mother Viviyan
17.Minor Joe rep.by mother Viviyan
18.Ananthi, W/o Pushpalingam
19.Ramachandran, S/o late Gopal
20.Kanakaraj, S/o late Chakrapani
21.Chitra, D/o late Chakrapani
22.Subhatra, D/o late Chakrapani
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2380 of 2024
23.Lakshmi, D/o late Chakrapani
24.Munusamy, S/o late Elumalai
25.Santhalingam, S/o Elumalai
26.Indira, D/o Elumalai
27.Arumugam, S/o Elumalai
28.Srinivasan, S/o Subramanian
29.Lalitha, W/o Chinnakannu
30.Subramanian, S/o Nachimuthu
31.Ramesh Bhushnam, S/o late Dhanabhushnam
32.Viji, D/o late Dhanabhushnam
33.Uma, D/o late Dhanabhushnam
34.Latha, D/o late Dhanabhushnam .. Respondents
Memorandum of Grounds of Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, against the order dated 16.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.1 of
2023 in O.S.No.82 of 2014 by the learned District Judge, District Court No.2,
Kancheepuram.
For Petitioner :: Mr.VKR.Balakrishnan
For Respondents :: Mr.K.Premkumar for R1 to R6
No appearance for R9, R19 & R31
Service awaited on other respondents
ORDER
This civil revision petition arises against the order passed by the learned District
Judge, District Court No.II, Kancheepuram in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.82 of 2014
dated 16.02.2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. O.S.No.82 of 2014 is a suit filed for the following reliefs:-
(i) a declaration declaring that the impugned family arrangement deed dated
22.06.1959 in document No.2228/1959 on the file of S.R.O.Pallavaram executed
by Late Munusamy S/o Poongon in favour of Late Gopal and legal heirs of
Annalammal in respect of 'A' and 'B' Schedule properties is illegal, null and void
and ab-initio;
(ii)a declaration declaring that the impugned release deed dated 08.04.1987 in
document No.1470/1987 on the file of S.R.O.Tambaram executed by defendants
1 and 25 in favour of ninth defendant in respect of 'C' Schedule property is
illegal, null and void ab-initio;
(iii)a declaration declaring that the impugned sale deed dated 03.05.1993 in
document No.4832/1993 on the file of S.R.O.Tambaram executed by
Murugammal, defendants 6 to 10 and Late Rajan and defendants 14 and 15 in
favour of defendant No.25 in respect of 'D' Schedule property is illegal, null and
void ab-initio;
(iv)a preliminary decree of partition dividing into 90 (ninety) equal shares of suit 'A'
and 'B' Schedule property and allot a 30 (thirty) equal shares to the plaintiffs
jointly by metes and bounds and appointing advocate commissioner for division
of suit property and pass the final decree
(v) to award costs.
3. The claim of the plaintiffs is that 'A' and 'B' schedule mentioned properties are
the ancestral properties which belong to two persons, namely, Gopal and Munusamy.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
They would plead that Gopal, Munusamy and one Arumugam, being co-parceners, were
entitled to one third share each. On the death of Munusamy on 07.02.1963, the
properties devolved on his legal heirs. Arumugam, being a legal heir of Munusamy, got
one fifth of the one third share that was devolved on his death. The said Arumugam
claimed that he is entitled to 6/15th share in 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. Accordingly,
on 06.10.1979, Arumugam died. The plaintiffs, 25th defendant and one Balan, who are
the legal representatives of Arumugam, succeeded to the estate on his death. Since the
document dated 22.06.1959 was being projected as dividing the rights of the plaintiffs,
they have brought forth the suit for the above said reliefs.
4. On being served with the summons, the ninth defendant took out an application
for rejection of plaint and the plaint was also rejected on 03.09.2015 holding that the
suit is barred by limitation. Against the said order, a regular appeal was preferred to this
Court in A.S.No.299 of 2016. The appeal was allowed on 08.02.2019 giving a direction
to the trial Court to treat the plea of limitation as an issue along with other issues in the
suit. There was a further direction to dispose of the suit within a period of nine months
from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
5. After this round of rejection of plaint was over, the tenth defendant filed a fresh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
application in I.A.No.6 of 2022 in the said suit. Yet again, the plea of limitation was
sought to be pressed before the Court & rejection of plaint was sought for. The learned
trial Judge came to a conclusion that the judgment in A.S.No.299 of 2016 is binding on
the tenth defendant, who claims the same right as the ninth defendant. Therefore, he
dismissed the application. No revision was preferred as against that order. Thereafter,
an application seems to have been filed in I.A.No.1 of 2023 seeking to review the order
passed in I.A.No.6 of 2022. The application was dismissed. Hence, this revision.
6. Heard Mr.VKR.Balakrishnan for the civil revision petitioner and
Mr.K.Premkumar for the respondents 1 to 6.
7. The condition precedent to review an order is that there should exist an error
apparent on the face of the record. In case, no such error exists, the Court should not
entertain an application for review. Prior to the review in I.A.No.6 of 2022, the learned
trial Judge came to a conclusion that the Division Bench judgment passed in
A.S.No.299 of 2016 is binding on the parties and hence he dismissed the said petition.
The fact that a new plea is being raised does not mean that the judgment passed by
Division Bench of this Court would not be binding on the parties. The tenth defendant,
who filed the application for rejection of plaint, has not challenged the order of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dismissal. Instead, he yet again moved the very same Court without pointing out what is
the error apparent on the face of the record.
8. When this was pointed out to Mr.Balakrishnan, he would state that in terms of
Order XLI, Rule 1, an application for review can be maintained for “any other sufficient
cause”. The expression “any other sufficient cause” has to be interpreted ejusdem
generis with the previous clauses. See, Chajju Ram v. Neki, (1922) L.R.49 I.A.144. It is
not an independent stand alone provision. The learned trial Judge has given clear and
cogent reasons why he is not reviewing the order passed in I.A.No.6 of 2022 dated
23.02.2023. I am not in a position to take an exception to the said order. The civil
revision petition is dismissed. No costs.
9. At this stage, Mr.Balakrishnan would point out that he has moved a review
application to review the order in A.S.No.299 of 2016. The dismissal of this revision
will not stand in the way of Mr.Balakrishnan to prosecute the said review application.
10. The learned District Judge is reminded that the Division Bench of this Court
had given a direction to dispose of the suit within nine months. Despite the fact that
several nine months have lapsed, he has still not disposed of the suit. The learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
District Judge shall strictly adhere to the direction given by the Division Bench and fast
track the suit, as the parties have been agitating from 2014. A suit that is pending for
ten years is sufficient to trigger the Court to expedite the suit at all stages.
Index: yes/no 03.09.2024
Neutral citation : yes/no
ss
To
1. The District Judge
District Court No.II
Kancheepuram
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
ss
03.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
