Madras High Court
Chellammal vs R.Vasudevan on 25 February, 2025
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
C.R.P(MD)Nos.510 & 519 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.02.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.R.P(MD)Nos.510 & 519 of 2025
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.2799 & 2847 of 2025
C.R.P(MD)No.510 of 2025:
1.Chellammal
2.M.Muthulakshmi
3.Muthumari ... Petitioners/Respondents 1-3/
Respondents 1-3/Plaintiffs
Vs.
1.R.Vasudevan
2.R.Srinivasan
3.R.Harivasan ... Respondents/Petitioners/
Appellants/3rd Parties
4.The Commissioner,
Madurai City Municipal Corporation,
Anna Maligai,
Madurai.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:54:27 am )
C.R.P(MD)Nos.510 & 519 of 2025
5.Assistant Commissioner,
Madurai City Municipal Corporation,
TPK Road, Complex Bus Stand,
Madurai.
6.N.Rathinavelu @ Ashok ... Respondents/Respondents 4-6/
Respondents 4-6/Defendants 1-3
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated
15.10.2024 passed in I.A.No.300 of 2020 in unnumbered A.S.No.--- of
2020 on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Madurai.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.P.Senthil
For R1 - R3 : Mr.V.Meenakshisundaram
C.R.P(MD)No.519 of 2025:
Rathinavelu @ Ashok ... Petitioner/6th Respondent/
6th Respondent/3rd Defendant
Vs.
1.R.Vasudevan
2.R.Srinivasan
3.R.Harivasan ... Respondents/Petitioners/
Appellants/3rd Parties
4.Chellammal
2/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:54:27 am )
C.R.P(MD)Nos.510 & 519 of 2025
5.M.Muthulakshmi
6.Muthumari ... Respondents/Respondents 1-3/
Respondents 1-3/Plaintiffs
7.The Commissioner,
Madurai City Municipal Corporation,
Anna Maligai,
Madurai.
8.Assistant Commissioner,
Madurai City Municipal Corporation,
TPK Road, Complex Bus Stand,
Madurai. ... Respondents/Respondents 4&5/
Respondents 4&5/Defendants 4&5
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated
15.10.2024 passed in I.A.No.300 of 2020 in unnumbered A.S.No.--- of
2020 on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Madurai.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Balakrishnan
For R1 - R3 : Mr.D.Nallathambi
ORDER
The respondents in unnumbered A.S on the file of the Principal
District Court, Madurai have filed the present revision petitions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:54:27 am )
C.R.P(MD)Nos.510 & 519 of 2025
challenging the order passed in I.A.No.300 of 2020 by the said Court on
15.10.2024.
2. O.S.Nos.850, 851 & 860 of 2010 and 783 of 2011 were heard
together and a common judgment and decree was passed by III
Additional Sub Court, Madurai on 14.09.2018. The respondents 1 to 3
herein were not parties to O.S.No.783 of 2011. However, they were
parties to O.S.Nos. 850, 851 & 860 of 2010. All the suits relate to the
same suit schedule property and there was rival claim between them for
title and possession.
3. O.S.No.783 of 2011 was filed by the revision petitioners in
C.R.P(MD)No.510 of 2025 seeking declaration that the final notice for
attachment, dated 08.01.2000 issued by the Corporation is not legally
valid and for a mandatory injunction directing the Corporation to modify
the mentioning of the plaintiffs therein as owners instead of possession
holder and for a permanent injunction directing the Corporation not to
collect the tax as per the attachment notice, dated 08.01.2000. In the said
suit, the respondents 1 to 3 herein were not parties. The suit was also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:54:27 am )
C.R.P(MD)Nos.510 & 519 of 2025
decreed by way of a common judgment. It is not in dispute that a joint
trial was conducted and evidence was recorded in O.S.No.850 of 2010
which was filed by the revision petitioners in C.R.P(MD)No.510 of 2025
seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering
with their possession and enjoyment of the property.
4. The defendants in O.S.Nos.850 & 860 of 2010 and the plaintiffs
in O.S.No.851 of 2010 have preferred A.S.No.11,12,13 of 2020 before
Principal District Court, Madurai and the same are pending. Since the
present respondents 1 to 3 herein were not parties to O.S.No.783 of 2011,
they have filed an application in I.A.No.300 of 2020 seeking the leave of
the Court to file an appeal. This leave application has been allowed.
Challenging the same, the present revision petition has been filed by the
plaintiffs in O.S.No.783 of 2011.
5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioners, the suits were pending from the year 1995 till 2018. The
respondents 1 to 3 have not chosen to get themselves impleaded in
O.S.No.783 of 2011, even though they were contesting the other three
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:54:27 am )
C.R.P(MD)Nos.510 & 519 of 2025
suits. Therefore, they cannot now seek leave of the Principal District
Court, Madurai to file an appeal as against O.S.No.783 of 2011. When
the respondents 1 to 3 herein were very well aware of the pendency of
the suit in O.S.No.783 of 2011, for so many years and the said suit
having been tried together, suddenly they cannot evince interest to file an
appeal.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in
C.R.P(MD)No.519 of 2025 submitted that he is the plaintiff in O.S.No.
860 of 2010. He also reiterated the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the revision petitioners in C.R.P(MD)No.510 of 2025 and
objected to granting of leave to the present respondents 1 to 3 herein for
filing a first appeal as against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.783 of
2011.
7. Heard the learned counsel for all the parties and perused the
material records.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:54:27 am )
C.R.P(MD)Nos.510 & 519 of 2025
8. There is no dispute that all the four suits were tried together and
evidence was recorded in O.S.No.850 of 2010 and a common judgment
was delivered on 14.09.2018. Aggrieved over the decree passed in three
of the suits, namely O.S.Nos.850, 851 and 860 of 2010, already the
present respondents 1 to 3 herein have filed appeals and the appeals have
been numbered. In case if they are not permitted to file an appeal as
against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.783 of 2011, the other
appeals filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein have to be dismissed on the
ground of res judicata, since all of them arise out of common judgment.
In such circumstances, this Court does not find any error or illegality in
the order granting leave to the respondents 1 to 3 herein to file a first
appeal as against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.783 of 2011.
9. In view of the above said deliberations, both the Civil Revision
Petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
25.02.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
gbg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:54:27 am )
C.R.P(MD)Nos.510 & 519 of 2025
To
1.The Principal District Court,
Madurai.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:54:27 am )
C.R.P(MD)Nos.510 & 519 of 2025
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
gbg
Order made in
C.R.P(MD)Nos.510 & 519 of 2025
25.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:54:27 am )
