Madras High Court
P.Bagiyam vs Valliammal (Died) on 4 September, 2024
CRP No.3584 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
CRP No.3584 of 2024 &
CMP.No.19432 of 2024
1.P.Bagiyam
2.P.Ramraj
3.P.Mahesh Kumar : Petitioners
versus
Valliammal (died)
1.Velusamy
2.Uma Mageswari
3.Sivagami : Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set
aside the fair and Decreetal order dated 05.06.2024 in I.A.No.4 of 2023 in
O.S.No.157 of 2016 on the file of the District Munsif Judge at Palladam.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Myilsamy
ORDER
This civil revision petition arises against the order of the learned
District Munsif, Palladam in I.A.No.4 of 2023 in O.S.No.157 of 2016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. O.S.No.157 of 2016 seeks a declaration that the plaintiff is the
owner of the property and for consequential relief of injunction restraining
the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment
of the property. It also seeks a declaration that the gift deed, that had been
executed by one Lakshmi in favour of the first defendant, is not binding
upon the plaintiff. It further seeks for a cancellation of the partition deed
dated 08.05.2008 that had been entered into between the first defendant and
the plaintiff and for costs of the suit.
3. The facts leading to the dispute are that the property admittedly
belonged to the mother of the plaintiff, one Ramakkal. She had executed a
“Will” in favour of her two daughters namely Valliammal and
Deivanaiammal. Deivanaiammal married one Rajamuthu Gounder.
Rajamuthu Gounder had already married a lady by name Karuppathal.
From the wedlock between Rajamuthu Gounder and Karuppathal, a child by
name Lakshmi was born.
4. From the wedlock between Deivanaiammal and Rajamuthu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Gounder, one Marappan was begotten. Marappan died. Claiming that
Lakshmi is the sister of Marappan, the said Lakshmi created certain
documents in favour of the first defendant. Valliammal claiming to be the
only surviving legal heir of Ramakkal and her husband, presented the suit
for the aforesaid reliefs.
5. On service of summons, the defendants filed a detailed written
statement denying the right of Valliammal. Pending the suit, Valliammal
passed away and her son, Velusamy, was brought on record.
6. When the matter was listed for evidence on the side of the plaintiff,
the defendants took out with an application to file an additional written
statement. The said application came to be dismissed. Hence the revision.
7. I have heard Mr.K.Myilsamy for the civil revision petitioner.
8. Mr.K.Myilsamy would plead that the purpose of filing an additional
written statement is to have a plea, for the purpose of introducing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
documents, listed along with the additional written statement. They are the
death certificate of Deivanaiammal, Marappan, Karuppathal and the sale
deeds which had been executed by Lakshmi and Marappan in favour of
third parties and a copy of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.39 of 2016
and O.S.No.46 of 2016 initiated by Valliammal as against the third parties to
the suit.
9. I feel that the additional written statement is absolutely unnecessary
for the facts of the present case. This is for a simple reason that, there is no
dispute that Ramakkal, Deivanaiammal and Marappan are all dead. In case
a declaration had been obtained by Valliammal behind the back of Lakshmi,
it is always open to the defendants to argue that the said decree is not
binding on them.
10. When a detailed written statement had been filed, replication of
the very same written statement is absolutely unnecessary. It only tends to
prolong the litigation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. In the light of the above discussion, I do no find any merit in this
revision. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The learned
District Munsif Judge at Palladam is directed to dispose of O.S.No.157 of
2016 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
Order.
04.09.2024
nl
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
To
1.The District Munsif Judge at Palladam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
nl
04.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
