Madras High Court
Yasodha vs M/S.Sri Kaliappa Trust on 21 May, 2025
C.R.P. No.1187 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved On 21.03.2025
Pronounced on 21.05.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
C.R.P. No.1187 of 2022 and
C.M.P. No.6313 of 2022
Yasodha ... Petitioner
Vs
1.M/s.Sri Kaliappa Trust
Rep. by its Chairman Sri T.Jaganathan
No.13, East Sambandam Road
R.S.Puram, Coimbatore - 641 002
2.Mrs.T.Radha
3.T.Jaganathan
4.T.Gowrishankar
5.K.R.Jayaraman ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India to set aside the order passed in I.A. No.2 of 2020 in Trust O.P. No.112 of
2020 dated 26.03.2021 by the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore.
________
Page 1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 01:36:33 pm )
C.R.P. No.1187 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu
for Mr.R.Ganesh Babu
For Respondents : Ms.R.Mahamandra Rajalakshmi
ORDER
The present civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed in
I.A. No.2 of 2020 in Trust O.P. No.112 of 2020 dated 26.03.2021 by the
learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore.
2. The revision petitioner had originally filed this application as a
proposed respondent in the above Trust OP No.112 of 2020 under Order I Rule
10(2) of CPC to implead herself as the second respondent in the main Trust OP.
The contention of the revision petitioner is that the Trust is a non-existing
institution, which had become defunct since a long time.
3. It is the further contention of the revision petitioner that the
respondents 1 to 4 herein had filed the Trust Original Petition with a view to
grab the property. According to the revision petitioner, the property was
originally purchased by one Arumuga Asari vide sale deed dated 11.04.1960.
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 01:36:33 pm )
The said Arumuga Asari passed away on 25.07.1993, leaving behind his legal
heirs, who in turn were in joint possession of the property. The revision
petitioner claims that she is the wife of the elder son of Arumuga Asari, namely
Shanmugam. The three sons of the said Arumuga Asari including the
petitioner's husband died. The surviving legal heirs of the said Arumuga Asari
had executed a release deed dated 20.09.2011 in favour of their mother
Pankajam and the said Pankajam died on 25.11.2016. The Trust, which was
arrayed as the first respondent was created on 24.04.2011 by late Thangavelu
and his legal heirs, namely respondents 2 to 4.
4. According to the revision petitioner, the said Arumuga Asari had
availed loan for a sum of Rs.2.25 lakhs from the deceased Thangavelu in the
year 1990 and the said Thangavelu had obtained signatures from the said
deceased Arumuga Asari in blank papers, which included stamp papers. By
virtue of the said papers, a fabricated sale agreement was created on
17.08.1990. According to the revision petitioner, the respondents 1 to 4 have
created forged documents, which were said to be executed by late Thangavelu.
A suit was filed by the said Thangavelu in O.S. No.630 of 1998, which was
transferred to District Munsif Court, coimbatore and re-numbered as O.S.
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 01:36:33 pm )
No.3798 of 2004. The said suit was decreed, the appeal suit and second appeal
filed by Nagammal and others were dismissed.
5. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No.2688 of 2013 before the First
Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore to declare the judgment and
decree in O.S. No.3987 of 2004 as null and void. The respondents 1 to 4 have
filed an application to reject the plaint and the same was allowed. As against
the same, an appeal was preferred by the revision petitioner in A.S. No.38 of
2014 and the same was allowed. The judgment passed by the trial court was set
aside. Challenging the same, a civil miscellaneous appeal was filed by the
respondents in C.M.A. No.1057 of 2015 and the said civil miscellaneous
appeal was dismissed. Against the dismissal of the civil miscellaneous appeal,
the first respondent Trust and others preferred a special leave petition in S.L.P.
(Civil) No.5653 of 2016 and the Hon'ble Apex Court finding some apparent
errors therein, remanded the matter back to the file of this court on 12.07.2016
for fresh disposal. Thereafter, the civil miscellaneous appeal was allowed by
this court on 01.08.2019. The petitioner and her family members have preferred
a review application against the judgment in C.M.A. No.1057 of 2015 and the
same is pending.
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 01:36:33 pm )
6. The contention of the respondents is that the original owner Arumuga
Asari, along with his wife, son and daughters entered into an agreement for sale
with one K.Thangavel. After receiving the sale consideration, on 24.04.1992,
Arumuga Asari had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of K.Thangavel.
On the same day, Arumuga Asari and his legal heirs jointly executed one
"Vuruthimozhi Pathiram" in favour of K.Thangavel. Thereafter, documents of
title and possession was handed over to K.Thangavel. Thereafter, K.Thangavel
had settled 5.00 acres of land in favour of the 1st respondent Trust, as per the
registered settlement deed, dated 25.07.1993. Further, he sold the remaining
land to some third parties. Subsequent to the death of Arumuga Asari,
suppressing the above said settlement in favour of the first respondent Trust
and the sale deed in favour of third parties, the legal heirs of Arumuga Asari,
had created a sale deed, dated 12.06.1998, in respect of entire 6.40 acres of
land in favour of one Nagammal and her three sons.
7. It is stated that subsequent to the judgment in C.M.A. No.1057 of
2015, the first respondent Trust and others also filed a suit in O.S. No.846 of
2019 before the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore for a declaration
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 01:36:33 pm )
that the sale in favour of Nagammal is not valid and binding upon the Trust and
the suit was decreed in favour of the Trust on 15.11.2019. As per the
respondents, in all the earlier proceedings, the legal heirs of Arumuga Asari did
not take a defence that the Trust is not in existence. The Trust has come
forward with the present Trust Original petition seeking to sell the petition
mentioned property, so as to effectively carry out its various other objects. The
petitioner or the other legal heirs of Arumuga Asari do not have right, title or
possession of the petition mentioned property so as to raise any objection in the
present petition.
8. The revision petitioner contended that she is an interested person in
the Trust OP and prayed that her right cannot be rejected, as she is the wife of
the elder son of Arumuga Asari, the original owner of the property.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would
contend that the petitioner has no right in view of the categorical finding
rendered in C.M.A. No.1057 of 2025 on 01.08.2019.
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 01:36:33 pm )
10. On a careful perusal of the order under challenge in this civil revision
petition, this court is of the view that the matter has already been settled in
favour of the respondents. The suit in O.S. No.630 of 1998 filed by
Thangavelu, which was transferred and re-numbered as O.S. No.3987 of 2004
was decreed in favour of Thangavelu on 30.10.2006 and the appeals filed by
the subsequent purchaser Nagammal and others were dismissed. The second
round of litigation initiated by the revision petitioner by filing O.S.
No.2688/2013 to declare the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.3987 of
2004 as null and void had attained finality in C.M.A. No.1057 of 2015 made
against A.S. No.38 of 2004.
11. From the above discussions, it is clear that the petitioner, who is a
third party has no right to get herself impleaded in the Trust original petition.
This court does not find any error or infirmity in the order of the learned
Principal District Judge, Coimbatore dated 26.03.2021 passed in I.A. No.2 of
2020 in Trust O.P. No.112 of 2020 and the same deserves no interference by
this court.
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 01:36:33 pm )
12. Accordingly, the civil revision petition fails and the same is
dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected
civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.05.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Asr
To
The Principal District Judge, Coimbatore
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 01:36:33 pm )
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
Asr
C.R.P. No.1187 of 2022 and
21.05.2025
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 01:36:33 pm )
