Madras High Court
S.Sasikala ... Review vs Minor Namrutha on 26 September, 2024
Author: S.S. Sundar
Bench: S.S. Sundar
Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.63 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.63 of 2024
S.Sasikala ... Review Petitioner
Vs.
1.Minor Namrutha
represented by her mother Guardian B.Amutha
2.P.V.Manoharan
3.Velusamy (died)
4.N.Mahalingam
5.K.Dharmalingam
6.Nallusamy (died)
7.Kanagasundaram
8.Saravanan
9.Perumal
10.SelambanaGounder
11.P.Meenakshi ... Respondents
[R11 brought on record as legal heir of deceased
3rd respondent by order dated 27.09.2024 made in
C.M.P.(MD) Nos.12053, 12056 & 12058 of 2024
in Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.63 of 2024]
Prayer : Review Application filed under Order 47 Rules 1 & 2 read with
Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure to review the judgment and decree
dated 19.09.2018, in S.A.No.406 of 2013 on the file of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1
Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.63 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Mathana Selvam
for Mr.N.Satheeshkumar
For R1 : Mr.Raghuvaran Gopalan
For R2 : Mr.Sam Jayaraj Houston
For R4 : Mr.S.Karthick Ramkumar
R3 : Died
For R11 : Mr.K.Suresh
ORDER
This Review Application is filed for review of the judgment and
decree dated 19.09.2018 in S.A.No.406 of 2019.
2.Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the Review
Application are as follows :
The 1st respondent in the review application filed a suit in
O.S.No.826 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Karur, for
declaration that the partition deed dated 03.12.2004 between the defendants
1 and 2 is void and subsequently, for grant of decree for partition of the suit
properties into four equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff
and for separate possession. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2
the decree of the trial Court was partly modified by the Additional
Subordinate Court, Karur, in A.S.No.50 of 2011, in respect of suit Item No.1
alone, and the decree was affirmed insofar as Suit Items 2 to 11 are
concerned. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred a Second Appeal in
S.A.No.406 of 2013 before this Court. The Second Appeal was allowed by
holding that the partition deed dated 03.12.2004 is void and not binding on
the plaintiff. Subsequently, this Court granted a decree for partition.
3.Now, the above Review Application is filed by the 3 rd respondent
in the Second Appeal, who is the 3 rd defendant in the suit, on the ground that
the 3rd respondent, who is none other than the daughter of P.Velusamy/2nd
defendant, is also entitled to a share. It is now admitted that P.Velusamy, the
2nd defendant, died during pendency of the proceedings and hence, the 11 th
respondent, the wife of 2nd defendant, has now been brought on record as the
legal heir of P.Velusamy. The relationship is not in dispute. P.Velusamy,
the 2nd defendant, is the father of the 1 st defendant by name P.V.Manoharan
and the 3rd defendant by name Sasikala. The plaintiff is the daughter of 1 st
defendant P.V.Manoharan. Since this Court has held that the partition deed
dated 03.12.2004 is void, consequently, the 3rd defendant, who is none else
than the daughter of P.Velusamy, is also entitled to a share in the property as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 3
that of 1st defendant and 2nd defendant. Therefore, this Review Application is
filed as a consequence of the judgment and decree of this Court in the Second
Appeal.
4.This Review Application is not opposed by the respondents.
Having regard to the right of the 3rd defendant as recognised in law, i.e.,
provisions of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, this Court finds
that the 3rd defendant/review applicant is also entitled to 1/3rd share in the
property.
5.Since the 2nd defendant/father namely P.Velusamy is no more, the
1/3rd share of the father P.Velusamy will devolve on 1 st defendant, 3rd
defendant and 11th respondent herein, the wife of the 2nd defendant. As a
result, this Review Application is allowed and the review applicant/3rd
defendant is entitled to 4/9th share; the 11th respondent is entitled to 1/9th
share; the 1st defendant is entitled to 5/18th share; and the plaintiff is entitled
to 1/6th share. Except the above modification with regard to the share of the
parties, the judgment and decree in the Second Appeal will hold good with
regard to findings in all other aspects. No costs.
26.09.2024
mkn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 4
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
To
1.The Additional Subordinate Judge,
Karur.
2.The Additional District Munsif,
Karur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 5
S.S. SUNDAR, J.
mkn
26.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 6
