Madras High Court
Ramasamy Gounder @ Rajaram vs Valliyammal on 17 February, 2025
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
C.R.P(MD)No.2992 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 17.02.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.R.P(MD)No.2992 of 2024
and
C.M.P(MD)No.17123 of 2024
Ramasamy Gounder @ Rajaram ... Petitioner/1st Defendant
Vs.
1.Valliyammal
2.Nirmala ... Respondents/Plaintiffs 1&2
3.Ponnusamy @ Prabhakaran
4.Muruganantham
5.Lingasamy
6.Meenakshi
N.Angamuthu (Died) ... Respondents/Defendants 2-6
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, to set aside the docket order, dated 28-10-2024
passed in the memo filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.131 of 2022 on the
file of the Additional District Court, Palani.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.2992 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh
For R1 & R2 : Mr.K.Elangovan
For R3 - R6 : No Appearance
ORDER
The 1st defendant in O.S.No.131 of 2022 on the file of Additional
District Court, Palani is the revision petitioner herein.
2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein as plaintiffs have filed the above
said suit for the relief of partition and separate possession. Pending suit,
the 6th defendant has passed away. A memo has been filed by the learned
counsel appearing for the 6th defendant that his client has passed away on
24.04.2023. Thereafter, the 1st defendant has filed a memo to the effect
that the legal heirs of the 6th defendant are necessary parties and they
have to be impleaded in the suit for partition. However, so far the
plaintiff has not taken any steps to implead the legal heirs of the 6th
defendant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. On the other hand, the plaintiffs have filed an application under
Order XXII Rule 4(4) of Code of Civil Procedure seeking exemption
from the Court from impleading the legal heirs of the deceased 6th
defendant. However, the said application was withdrawn by the
plaintiffs. The trial Court has made an endorsement on 28.10.2024 to the
effect that the legal heirs of 6th defendant need not be impleaded since no
relief is asked for in the plaint as against 4th defendant to 6th defendant.
Aggrieved over the said order, the present revision petition has been
filed.
4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner, the plaint prayer is against all the defendants and therefore,
the observation of the Court granting exemption from impleading the
legal heirs of the 6th defendant is not legally sustainable. He further
contended that once a suit is dismissed as abated as against one of the co-
sharers, the suit get dismissed as against all other co-sharers in view of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1973 SC
204 (Babu Sukhram Singh V. Ram Dular Singh & Others).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. This Court has perused the prayer in the plaint and found that
the prayer in the plaint has been sought for as against all the defendants.
If the plaintiffs do not want to implead the legal heirs of the 6th
defendant, they are taking the risk. The suit as against the 6th defendant
has got abated. In case, if the trial Court ultimately arrives at a finding
that the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for partition, the Court has to
consider, whether the 6th defendant is a necessary party to the suit for
partition or not. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the
order of the trial Court.
6. With the said observations, this Civil Revision Petition stands
disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
17.02.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
gbg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Additional District Court,
Palani.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.
gbg
Order made in
17.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
