Madras High Court
Thenmozhi vs M.V.Thirugnanasambandam on 28 January, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
C.R.P.[NPD].Nos.4000 & 40001 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date : 28.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
C.R.P.[NPD].Nos.4000 & 4001 of 2019
and CMP.No.9201 of 2019
1.Thenmozhi
2.Mahadeven . . . Petitioners in both CRPs
Versus
1. M.V.Thirugnanasambandam
2.Karthikeyan
3.Mangayakarasi
4.Kannagi
5.Kalaiarasi
6.Kumar
7.Palani
8.Padmalatha . . . Respondents in CRP 4000 of 2019
1. M.V.Thirugnanasambandam
2.Kalaiarasi
3.Mangayakarasi
4.Kannagi
5.Karthikeyan
6.Vijayalakshmi
7.Kumar
8.Palani
9.Padmalatha . . . Respondents in CRP 4001 of 2019
Page 1 / 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.[NPD].Nos.4000 & 40001 of 2019
Prayer in CRP.No.4000 of 2019: Petitions filed under Section 115 of Code
of Civil Procedure, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 20.06.2018
made in CMA.No.4 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet,
Vellore District against the fair and final order dated 01.07.2017 made in
EP.No.33 of 2012 in O.S.No.240 of 2004.
Prayer in CRP.No.4001 of 2019: Petitions filed under Section 115 of Code
of Civil Procedure, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 20.06.2018
made in CMA.No.2 of 2015 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet,
Vellore District against the fair and final order dated 17.04.2015 made in
I.A.No.24 of 2012 in O.S.No.265 of 2004.
For petitioner : Mr.K.V.Ananthakrishnan
For respondents : Mr.M.Padmanabhan for R1 & R2
No appearance for R3 & R4
R4 and R6 - Died
COMMON ORDER
(i) Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.4000 of 2019 has been filed by
the plaintiffs 2 and 3 challenging the order dated 20.06.2018 made in
C.M.A.No.4 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, Vellore
District, confirming the order dated 01.07.2014 made in E.P.No.33 of 2012
in O.S.No.240 of 2004 filed under Order XXI, Rule 35 of CPC dismissing
the application filed by the legal heirs of the plaintiff/decree-holder –
M.G.Thirunavukkarasu for delivery of possession of the schedule mentioned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.[NPD].Nos.4000 & 40001 of 2019
property; and
(ii) Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.4001 of 2019 has also been
filed by the plaintiffs 2 & 3 challenging the order dated 20.06.2018 made in
C.M.A.No.2 of 2015 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, Vellore
District, confirming the order dated 17.04.2015 made in I.A.No.24 of 2012
in O.S.No.265 of 2004 appointing Mr.R.Pandurangan, Advocate as
Commissioner, at the instance of the 14th defendant, to inspect the suit
property with the assistance of Surveyor and divide the suit 1 st item of
properties into 21 equal shares and allot 6 shares to the 14th defendant and
divide the other landed properties into 18 shares and allot 3 such shares to
the 14th defendant with correct measurements and specific boundaries by
taking into account the feasibility of enjoyment.
2. The confusion had arisen due to the disposal of two different suits
by common judgment by the trial court. The suit in O.S.No.240 of 2004 was
filed for specific performance of agreement of sale executed by the other co-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.[NPD].Nos.4000 & 40001 of 2019
owner in favour of the plaintiff-M.G.Thirunavukkarasu while the other suit
in O.S.No.265 of 2004 was filed by one of the other co-owner - T.Kalaiarasi
for partition of suit properties into 28 equal shares and allot one such share
to the plaintiff – M.G.Thirunavukkarsu. The said Thirunavukkarasu died
after the appeal suit in A.S.No.44 of 2006. The legal heirs of the deceased
sole plaintiff/decree holderThirunavukkarasu viz., (i) Thenmozhi D/o
Thirunavukkarasu and (ii) Mahadevan, Son of Thirunavukkarasu were
brought on record as plaintiffs 2 and 3 in the execution proceedings.
3. Both the suits were tried together and a common judgment was
passed on 30.08.2005. The suit in O.S.No.240 of 2004 which was filed for
specific performance was decreed in respect of 4/7 share and the other suit
in O.S.No.265 of 2004 which was filed for partition was decreed for the
remaining extent of the properties.
4. When an execution petition was filed by the decree holders to
enforce the specific performance of contract, the same was dismissed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.[NPD].Nos.4000 & 40001 of 2019
executing court by order dated 01.07.2014 on the ground that the final
decree was not yet be passed and the division of properties have not been
effected. Challenging the the order dismissing execution petition and as
confirmed by the appellate court, C.R.P.No.4000 of 2021 has been filed.
5. In the meanwhile, an advocate commissioner was appointed in the
final decree proceedings at the instance of the 14th defendant. Challenging
the appointment of Advocate Commissioner, the legal heirs of the decree-
holder have filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.2 of 2015 which came to be
dismissed by the appellate court by order dated 20.06.2018. Challenging the
same, C.R.P.No.4001 of 2019 has been filed.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
7. Today, an affidavit has been filed by the respondents to the effect
that they are not willing to sell the property and the property is divisible.
Therefore, the partition may be effected. The revision petitioners have filed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.[NPD].Nos.4000 & 40001 of 2019
an affidavit to the effect that they are also intending to go for partition, if the
Trial Court appoints an advocate commissioner, divides the property and
allot 15/21 shares in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.240 of 2004 and the
remaining 6/21 shares shall be alloted in favour of the other co-owner.
8. As both sides have submitted that the property is now divisible, the
Order of the Trial Court in EP.No.33 of 2012 is set aside and the Executing
Court is directed to appoint an advocate commissioner, divide the property
and allot 15/21 shares in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.240 of 2004 and
the remaining 6/21 shares to be alloted in favour of the other co-owners as
per their entitlement. Accordingly, the CRP.No.4000 of 2019 is allowed.
9. Since, the other CRP.No.4001 of 2019 is filed challenging the
order dated 20.06.2018 made in CMA.No.2 of 2015 on the file of the
Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, Vellore District is concerned, as this Court has
directed this Court to proceed in respect of the division of house property,
the revision in CRP.No.4001 of 2019 is dismissed. The Trial Court shall
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.[NPD].Nos.4000 & 40001 of 2019
proceed with the final decree proceedings as per its own merits.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands
closed.
28.01.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes
Speaking/non speaking order
dhk
To
1. The Sub Judge
Subordinate Court, Ranipet, Vellore District
2.The District Munsif
District Munsif Court, Walaja
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.[NPD].Nos.4000 & 40001 of 2019
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
dhk
C.R.P.[NPD].Nos.4000 & 4001 of 2019
28.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
