Madras High Court
Sivanandi vs Yoga Murugan ... 1St on 26 March, 2025
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.126 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.126 of 2025
and
C.M.P(MD) Nos.793 of 2025
Sivanandi ... Petitioner/Petitioner/
Appellant/Plaintiff
Vs.
1. Yoga Murugan ... 1st Respondent/
1st Respondent/
1st Respondent/
Defendant
2. Perumal ... 2nd Respondent/
2nd Respondent/3rd Party
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, to set aside the order and Ex-order dated 25.10.2024 made in I.A.No.1
of 2023 in A.S.No.25 of 2023 on the file of the Additional District and
Sessions Court, Periyakulam and allow this Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
For R1 : Mr.V.N.Arjun
For R2 : Mr.Khoushik Nivas
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 09:32:08 pm )
C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.126 of 2025
ORDER
The plaintiff in O.S.No.163 of 2021 on the file of the Sub Court,
Periyakulam, has filed the present Civil Revision Petition challenging the
dismissal of his application in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in A.S.No.25 of 2023 on the
file of Additional District and Sessions Court, Periyakulam.
2. A perusal of the records reveal that the above said suit has been filed
by the revision petitioner/plaintiff for the relief of recovery of a sum of
Rs.8,38,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs and Thirty Eight Thousand only), based
upon the mortgage deed dated 20.02.2012. The trial Court had dismissed the
said suit on the ground that the father has mortgaged the property of his son
for getting loan from the plaintiff. The father has not obtained any prior
permission from the Court for mortgaging the property as contemplated under
Section 8 (2) (a) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The trial
Court has further found that the borrowal was made only by the father and not
by his son. Therefore, non impleading of the father in the suit is fatal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 09:32:08 pm )
C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.126 of 2025
3. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff has filed
A.S.No.25 of 2023 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court,
Periyakulam. Pending appeal, the plaintiff has filed I.A.No.1 of 2023 to
implead the father of the original defendant in the suit, namely, Perumal. The
said application has been dismissed by the first appellate Court on the ground
that the father is neither a proper nor a necessary party to arrive at a just
decision. This order is under challenge in the present Civil Revision Petition.
4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner/ plaintiff, the father alone has borrowed the money from the
plaintiff by mortgaging the property of his minor son. Even assuming that the
mortgage deed is not valid in the eye of law, the father would be personally
liable for repaying the loan amount. Therefore, the plaintiff could be
permitted to proceed as against the father.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/
original defendant/son had contended that the trial Court has categorically
found that the mortgage created by the father is void in view of Section 8 (2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 09:32:08 pm )
C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.126 of 2025
(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, and therefore, the property
of the minor cannot be subject matter of the suit.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the proposed party, namely the
father of the original defendant had contended that the money claim is based
upon a mortgage deed dated 20.02.2012 and therefore, he cannot be
impleaded in the year 2023 and the suit as against him is clearly barred by
limitation.
7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
8. As rightly pointed out by the trial Court, the father has borrowed the
loan by mortgaging the property of his minor son without getting prior
permission of the Court as contemplated under Section 8(2) (a) of Hindu
Minority and Guardianship Act. Therefore, the mortgage is not valid in the
eye of law. However, the father of the minor, namely, Perumal, would be
personally liable to repay the loan amount, in case, if the plaintiff is able to
establish the borrowal made by Mr.Perumal. Therefore, the said Perumal is
not only a proper party but also a necessary party in the suit proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 09:32:08 pm )
C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.126 of 2025
9. Therefore the order impugned in the Revision Petition is hereby set
aside and this Revision Petition stands allowed. However, impleading shall
take effect only from the date on which notice was served upon the proposed
party by the first appellate Court, in view of Section 21 of the Limitation Act.
10. With the above said observation, this Civil Revision Petition stands
allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected
Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.
26.03.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
To
1. The Additional District and Sessions Court,
Periyakulam.
2. The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 09:32:08 pm )
C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.126 of 2025
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ebsi
26.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 09:32:08 pm )
