Madras High Court
R.T.Gurumoorthy vs S.Geetha on 12 September, 2025
CRP.Nos.251 & 3035 of 2023
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Order reserved on : 11.08.2025 Order pronounced on : 12.09.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
CRP.Nos.251 & 3035 of 2023
& CMP.Nos.2048, 2049, 18791, 20389 & 20392 of 2023
CRP.No.251 of 2023:
1.R.T.Gurumoorthy
2.T.M.Thilagavathy ..Petitioners
Vs.
1.S.Geetha
2.S.N.Lalitha
3.S.N.Balaji ..Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, to strike off the suit in O.S.No.8869 of 2022 on the file of the 18 th
Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Senthilnathan
For Respondents : Mr.V.Ramamurthy
Mr.K.Myilsamy, Advocate Commissioner
CRP.No.3035 of 2023:
S.v.Nageswaran (since died)
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 01:26:05 pm )
CRP.Nos.251 & 3035 of 2023
M/s.Meenakshi Engineering Works,
Rep. by its Substituted partners,
S.N.Lalitha @ S.N.Balaji,
Old No.89, New No.201, Lake View Road,
West Mambalam, Chennai -33. ..Petitioner
Vs.
1.R.T.Gurumoorthy
2.T.M.Thilagavathi ..Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, to set aside E.A.No.1 of 22 in E.P.No.2324 of 2009 passed by the X
Assistant City Civil Court on 07.07.2023.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ramamurthy
For Respondents : Mr.S.Senthilnathan for R1
R2 not ready in notice
No appearance for R2
COMMON ORDER
In CRP.No.251 of 2023, the petitioners/defendants 3 and 4, challenging
the very filing of the suit in O.S.No.8869 of 2022, are seeking to strike off the
same. Insofar as CRP.No.3035 of 2023, it is at the instance of a firm, claiming
under judgment debtor No.7, represented by its substituted partners, S.N.Lalitha
and S.N.Balaji. In view of the subject matter of both the matters being
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 01:26:05 pm )
CRP.Nos.251 & 3035 of 2023
predominantly one and the same and as between the same parties, the revisions
have been heard together.
2.I have heard Mr.S.Senthilnathan, learned counsel for the petitioners in
CRP.No.251 of 2023 and respondents in CRP.No.3035 of 2023 and
Mr.V.Ramamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRP.No.3035 of 2023
and the 1st respondent in CRP.No.251 of 2023.
3.It is the case of the revision petitioners that the suit was filed originally
in O.S.No.8869 of 2022 by the wife of one, R.Sankaran. The said R.Sankaran
was one of the partners of the M/s.Meenakshi Engineering Works. It is the
specific contention of the revision petitioners that neither the said wife of
R.Sankaran, namely S.Geetha nor her husband R.Sankaran were parties in the
execution petition and the said Geetha, the 1st respondent in the CRP.No.251 of
2023 had purchased only 50% of the suit property, which was subject matter of
the execution petition. Her husband had not taken any action pending appeal
proceedings or also against the final decree proceedings at any point, during his
lifetime and therefore, the the suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.8869 of 2022
was not maintainable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 01:26:05 pm )
CRP.Nos.251 & 3035 of 2023
4.Mr.V.Ramamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioners would state that
the property, which is sought to be delivered to the decree holder has been in
the possession of the legal heirs of S.V.Nageswaran and before him, the vendor,
S.V.Pattu Sastri. In this regard he would refer to judgment in O.S.No.2395 of
1966 and contend that when there has been no recovery of possession sought
for by the decree holder, the possession cannot be sought to be disturbed. He
would therefore contend that the suit filed for partition in O.S.No.8869 of 2022
is very well maintainable and there is no question of striking off the same.
5.Pointing out to the decree passed in O.S.No.2395 of 1966, the learned
counsel for the petitioners would also contend that there is no decree for
delivery of possession and hence, the execution petition filed for recovery of
possession is not maintainable and possession of the property with the revision
petitioner in CRP.No.3035 of 2023 cannot be interfered with. He would also
state that the partition suit filed by the third party purchaser, without seeking
the relief of recovery of possession cannot bind third parties. He would rely on
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Trinity Infraventures Limited and
others Vs. M.S.Murthy and others, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 738 and
Vasantha (Dead) through LR's Vs. Rajalakshmi @ Rajam (Died) through LR's,
reported in (2024) 5 SCC 282.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 01:26:05 pm )
CRP.Nos.251 & 3035 of 2023
6.With regard to CRP.No.3055 of 2023, it is the contention of
Mr.Ramamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioner that M/s.Meenakshi
Engineering Works is not a party to the decree and the question of impleading
S.V.Nageswaran as the partner of the said M/s.Meenakshi Engineering Works
was impermissible and the right course of action was to implead the legal heirs
of Pattu Sastri alone and therefore, the very execution petition itself was not
maintainable. The learned counsel would further contend that when the
partnership itself cease to exist, the question of substituting the respondents in
CRP.No.3035 of 2023 did not even arise. In any event, it is contended that the
decree has not been obtained in the name of a firm and the executing Court
erroneously placed reliance on earlier litigation and disputes and went beyond
the decree in O.S.No.2395 of 1966, by permitting substitution as prayed for.
7.The learned counsel for the petitioner in CRP.No.3035 of 2023 would
further contend that the recourse open to the decree holder was to have filed a
suit for partition under the Partition Act and not by way of a regular suit since
the property is a dwelling house, as described in the Sale Deed and therefore
the suit itself was not maintainable and consequently, the decree obtained also
cannot be enforced.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 01:26:05 pm )
CRP.Nos.251 & 3035 of 2023
8.Per contra, Mr.S.Senthilnathan, learned counsel appearing for the 1st
respondent would submit that the title of the petitioners in CRP.No.251 of 2023
has already been affirmed in a judgment that attained finality up to the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in SLP.No.2086 of 1976. He would invite my attention to the
suit fled in O.S.No.2395 of 1966, which came to be decreed on 29.12.1969,
though First Appellate Court allowed the appeal in A.S.No.351 of 1970 and set
aside the preliminary decree, this Court in S.A.No.523 of 1973, allowed the
second appeal and confirmed the decree passed in O.S.No.2395 of 1966. He
would also invite my attention to the final decree application which also came
to be allowed on 29.09.1984 and the dismissal of the first appeal in AS.No.640
of 1987 and at the same time, cross objection No.30 of 1988 being allowed,
setting aside the compensation awarded in the final decree application. The
dismissal of the first appeal was unsuccessfully challenged in S.A.No.1442 of
1989 and the Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court also
came to be dismissed on 15.04.2005. Thereafter, the plaintiffs/decree holders
have filed execution petition in EP.No.2324 of 2009. The judgment debtors
filed an application under Section 47 of CPC, alleging that the LR's had not
been impleaded and the decree is not executable. The said Section 47
application was however dismissed by the executing Court, the same was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 01:26:05 pm )
CRP.Nos.251 & 3035 of 2023
challenged in CRP.No.2711 of 2013 and this Court dismissed the civil revision
petition on 24.01.2022, holding that it was a clear case of abuse of process by
the judgment debtor. A civil suit came to be filed in C.S.No.689 of 2010 for
declaration that the preliminary decree obtained in O.S.No.2395 of 1966 is null
and void. An application was taken out by the petitioners in CRP.No.251 of
2023 for rejection of the plaint and the same came to be allowed, as against the
same, the firm represented by its partners, namely the revision petitioners in
CRP.No.3035 of 2023 filed OSA.No.49 of 2021. The said OSA was dismissed
on 24.08.2022, affirming the rejection of the plaint.
9.It is thereafter that the petition was filed for substitution of the
deceased partner was sought for and despite the objection by the judgment
debtors that all the legal heirs of the deceased had to be impleaded, the petition
for substitution came to be allowed. It is this order permitting substitution as
prayed for which is under challenge in the present revision petition in
CRP.No.3035 of 2023.
10.First, dealing with the revision for striking off the plaint, the suit in
C.S.No.689 of 2019 has been filed by M/s.Mennakshi Engineering Works
represented by its partners, S.N.Lalitha and S.N.Balaji, for a declaration that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 01:26:05 pm )
CRP.Nos.251 & 3035 of 2023
they are the owners of the suit property, by tracing title to the grandfather Sri
Pattu Vathiar under registered Sale Deed dated 16.11.1957 and for a declaration
that the decree and judgment in O.S.No.2395 of 1966 is void, inoperative and
not binding on the plaintiff and for a consequential relief of permanent
injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of the
plaintiffs. O.S.No.8869 of 2022, which is sought to be struck off, has been filed
by one S.Geetha, claiming that her husband R.Sankaran was the owner of the
property, having purchased the same under a registered Sale Deed dated
29.10.1986 in Doc.No.3872 of 1986. According to the plaintiff, S.Geetha, the
said property was purchased in the name of M/s.Meenakshi Engineering works,
a registered partnership firm, which came into existence in the year 1982 and
the plaintiff's husband was one of the partners along with S.V.Nageswaran and
minor daughter of S.V.Nageswarn, S.N.Lalitha.
11.It is the case of the plaintiff that the firm commenced its business in
the suit property which was taken on lease by the plaintiff's husband and the
other partners of M/s.Meenakshi Engineering Works. It is the further case of
the plaintiff that the property was purchased by way of two Sale Deeds, namely
Sale Deed dated 29.10.1986 and 03.03.1988 and the firm was in absolute
possession and enjoyment of the said property. According to the plaintiffs, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 01:26:05 pm )
CRP.Nos.251 & 3035 of 2023
firm became defunct in the year 2003 and the partnership was dissolved in or
about 2003 and the property in the name of the firm was agreed to be divided
amongst the plaintiff's husband, R.Sankaran and S.V.Nageswaran. According to
the plaintiff, her husband was entitled to 50% of the suit property and the
partners had constructed an old age home and the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant
spent substantial sums of money for the construction of the old age home and
they are running the same. Subsequently, the plaintiff's husband died on
18.09.2015 and the plaintiff had moved to Chidambaram and she had
authorized her nephew, the 2nd defendant, to look after the old age home.
Contending that the plaintiff, being the only surviving legal heir of her husband
R.Sankaran, the plaintiff has filed the suit for partition and separate possession.
12.Even in the plaint, the plaintiff has dealt with the decree in
O.S.No.2395 of 1966 as well as in EP.No.2324 of 2009 filed for delivery of
possession of the suit property. It is the contention of the plaintiff that
M/s.Meenakshi Engineering Works never suffered a decree or faced any
litigation and therefore, the decree in O.S.No.2395 of 1966 would not bind the
plaintiff or the firm. It is also contended that Order XXX of CPC mandates that
the suit against the firm will have to be filed against all the partners with the
addresses and without impleading all the partners, the execution petition filed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 01:26:05 pm )
CRP.Nos.251 & 3035 of 2023
against M/s.Meenakshi Engineering Works alone, who was not even a party to
the suit, cannot be maintained and the plaintiff proceeds to seek for partition
and separate possession of her alleged half share in the suit property. The said
suit is now attacked by the revision petitioners in C.S.No.251 of 2023, as being
a sheer abuse of process and clear re-litigation, warranting striking off the
plaint.
13.In fact, a suit was filed as early as 1958 in O.S.No.1369 of 1958. The
said suit came to be dismissed and in A.S.No.123 of 1964, the Appellate Court
dismissed the appeal, but granted liberty to file a suit for partition.
Subsequently, O.S.No.2395 of 1966 came to be filed by R.V.Thirunavukarasu
Mudaliar against Nagammal and five others. The 6th defendant in the said suit is
S.V.Pattu Sastri. The suit has been filed for partition, possession, mesne profits
and costs. The said suit was decreed and a preliminary decree for partition of a
plot of land measuring 18 ft East -West x 25 ft North-South at the south
western corner of the suit property. The said decree has become final, as
already discussed herein above. Therefore, the execution petition was filed in
E.P.No.2324 of 2009 to execute the decree passed in O.S.No.2395 of 1966,
after the decree attained finality up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 01:26:05 pm )
CRP.Nos.251 & 3035 of 2023
14.The plaintiffs, R.T.Gurumoorthy and T.M.Thilagavathy had filed EP
against S.V.Nageswaran, one of the partners of M/s.Meenakshi Engineering
Works. On his demise, E.A.No.1 of 2022 was filed. In the said application, it
was contended that the legal heirs of the deceased partner of the firm,
S.N.Lalitha and S.N.Balaji claiming to be partners of M/s.Meenakshi
Engineering Works had filed a suit in C.S.No.689 of 2019 before this Court to
declare the judgment and decree in O.S.No.2395 of 1966 as null and void and
the said claim came to be rejected, on the application, the decree holders/the
plaitiffs filed OSA challenging the rejection of the plaint and the same also
came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. In view of the
subsequent proceedings, the decree holder sought for substitution of the present
partners, who claimed under M/s.Meenakshi Engineering Works in C.S.No.689
of 2019 as judgment debtors in the EP proceedings. The said application was
allowed by the Trial Court, as against which, one of the present revisions is
filed.
15.It is already seen that the decree in O.S.No.2395 of 1966 went up to
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and even a faint attempt to declare the said
judgment and decree as null and void by the revision petitioner in
CRP.No.3035 of 2023 was unsuccessful with their plaint being rejected and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 01:26:05 pm )
CRP.Nos.251 & 3035 of 2023
same was also challenged in OSA proceedings and the said OSA was also
dismissed. Therefore, the attempt of the decree holders to implead the plaintiff
in C.S.No.689 of 2019 in the execution proceedings cannot be found fault with.
Even in the plaint in C.S.No.689 of 2019, the plaintiff only claimed that they
are the partners of M/s.Meenakshi Engineering Works, being son and daughter
of S.V.Nageswaran.
16.It was not their case that the present plaintiff, S.Geetha was a partner
and that she was entitled to 50% of the suit property. All the contentions that
were raised by the revision petitioner in CRP.No.3035 of 2023 have already
been canvassed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and now it is apparent that
they have set up the wife of the other partner, R.Sankaran to institute the suit,
as if she is entitled to 50% of the suit property. In the earlier proceedings, it was
only S.V.Nageswaran, who represented M/s.Meenakshi Engineering Works and
at no point of time, the separate interest of R.Sankaran was canvassed. The said
R.Sankaran also, during his lifetime, never took any steps to get himself
impleaded, claiming any share in the suit property or interest in the firm. After
having lost the battle up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in order to thwart
the execution proceedings filed by the decree holder, the wife of the other
deceased partner, claiming share in the suit property, has apparently been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 01:26:05 pm )
CRP.Nos.251 & 3035 of 2023
instigated to file the present suit in O.S.No.8869 of 2022. All the issues, that
are canvassed by the plaintiff, have already been elaborately discussed and
decided up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the firm was very much a party to
S.A.No.1442 of 1989 as 3rd appellant and therefore, the plaintiff in the present
suit is clearly bound by the judgment and decree passed in the earlier round of
litigation and she cannot maintain an independent suit, re-agitating the very
same issues, which have already attained finality.
17.Therefore, as rightly contended by Mr.Senthilnathan, there is absolute
no merit or bonafides in the present suit that has been filed by S.Geetha, wife of
the one of the deceased partners of the firm. It is a clear case of re-litigation and
abuse, which has to be nipped in the bud. The litigation has been going on from
1958 onwards and the present suit is only yet another attempt to defeat the
rights that have accrued to the decree holders. Therefore, I find force in the
submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit is clearly
amounting to re-litigation and is liable to be struck off, as being a clear abuse of
process.
18.The Hon'ble Supreme Court, right from K.K.Modi's case, have
frowned upon re-agitation of matters that have attained finality and attempts at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 01:26:05 pm )
CRP.Nos.251 & 3035 of 2023
re-litigation, as being abuse of process. In view of the above, I am inclined to
allow CRP.No.269 of 2023.
19.Coming to the other revision in CRP.No.3035 of 2023, the executing
Court permitting the substitution as prayed for, is under challenge on the
grounds that the learned counsel, Mr.V.Ramamurthy, challenges the order of
the executing Court on the primary grounds that the firm, M/s.Meenakshi
Engineering Works was not a party to the suit firstly and secondly, the said firm
had already become defunct. However, the very same issues have already been
decided in the earlier round of litigation and the revision petitioners themselves
have filed a suit in their capacity of being partners in M/s.Meenakshi
Engineering Works in C.S.No.689 of 2019 and therefore, it does not lie in their
mouth to contend that the firm has become defunct and therefore, the
substitution as permitted by the executing Court is not legally sustainable.
20.The Trial court has found that the execution petition has been filed
only to deliver possession of the property that has been declared to be the
property of the decree holders. The executing Court also taken note of the fact
that in the cause title, S.V.Nageswaran has been arrayed as a party only in his
capacity as being the Managing Director of M/s.Meenakshi Engineering
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 01:26:05 pm )
CRP.Nos.251 & 3035 of 2023
Works. The executing Court has rightly taken note of the earlier proceedings
right from A.S.No.351 of 1970 up to dismissal of SLP on 15.04.2005. The
Court has also taken note of the fact that even the vakalat filed on behalf of
S.V.Nageswaran was only in his capacity as partner of M/s.Meenakshi
Engineering Works and even in the revision petition challenging the decree, by
filing CRP.No.2711 of 2013 against the order, dismissing the Section 47 of
CPC petition as well, the said S.V.Nageswaran has only represented
M/s.Meenakshi Engineering Works and has not filed any of the proceedings in
his individual capacity.
21.Therefore, the executing Court also took note of the suit filed by the
revision petitioner in C.S.No.3035 of 2023 and its consequent rejection under
Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and the unsuccessful challenge to the said rejection
of the plaint as well, and has rightly found that when the revision petitioner in
CRP.No.3035 of 2023 had filed C.S.No.689 of 2019 as partners of
M/s.Meenakshi Engineering Works and challenged the decree in O.S.No.2395
of 1966, they cannot now object to the substitution to include them as judgment
debtors in the place of S.V.Nageswaran. I do not find any infirmity, illegality or
perversity in the findings arrived at by the executing Court, by permitting the
substitution. The revision petitioners themselves having claimed to be partners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 01:26:05 pm )
CRP.Nos.251 & 3035 of 2023
of M/s.Meenakshi Engineering Works cannot now turn around and state that
the EP is not maintainable for non-impleading the legal heirs of the another
deceased partner or on the ground that the firm was not a party to the earlier
proceedings. All these objections have been dealt with rightly by the executing
Court and on proper reference to the long and chequered history of litigation
between the parties. Therefore, I do not find any valid grounds made out to
interfere with the order passed by the executing Court.
22.The execution petition has been filed only to execute the preliminary
decree passed, earmarking the specific property in favour of the decree holders.
Despite the decree having been passed in 1969, the decree holder have not been
able to enjoy the fruits of the decree till date. In fact, an attempt was made, even
pending these revisions to enable the parties to amicably settle the disputes,
considering that the proceedings have been pending for several decades and an
Advocate Commissioner was also appointed to demarcate the extent of 2000
sq.ft, to which the decree holders are entitled to. The Advocate Commissioner
has also visited the property and demarcated the said 2000 sq.ft and the
Commissioner has also filed a report on 21.07.2025, demarcating the extent of
2000 sq.ft as per the decree. However, even to the said report, the revision
petitioners/judgment debtors had objections and therefore, I do not wish to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 01:26:05 pm )
CRP.Nos.251 & 3035 of 2023
proceed on the basis of the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner, which
was only an attempt to enable the parties to resolve the disputes amicably. In
view of the above, I do no find any merits or bonafides in the objections taken
by the revision petitioner in CRP.No.3035 of 2023 which are clearly untenable
and malafide. In view of the above, I am not inclined to allow CRP.No.3035 of
2023.
23.In the light of the above, CRP.No.251 of 2023 is allowed and the suit
in O.S.No.8869 of 2022 on the file of the XVIII Additional City Civil Court,
Chennai, is struck off. CRP.No.3035 of 2023 is dismissed. The executing Court
shall proceed with the execution process and ensure that the proceedings are
finally concluded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected Civil
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, are closed.
12.09.2025
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
ata
To
1.The XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.
2.The X Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 01:26:05 pm )
CRP.Nos.251 & 3035 of 2023
P.B.BALAJI.J,
ata
Pre-delivery order made in
CRP.Nos.251 & 3035 of 2023
& CMP.Nos. 2048, 2049, 18791, 20389 & 20392 of 2023
12.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 01:26:05 pm )
