[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Ramasamy (Died) vs Marathal (Died) on 26 February, 2026
C.R.P.No.3111 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 17.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 26.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
C.R.P.No.3111 of 2023
and C.M.P.No.19270 of 2023
Ramasamy (Died)
2.Lakshmi
3.R.Parameshwari
4.A.Kamalam
5.R.Gandhimathi ... Petitioners
(Sole Petitioner Died. Petitioners 2 to 5 are brought on record as
LRs of the deceased Sole Petitioner Viz., Ramasamy vide court order
dated 03.12.2025 made in CMP.No.9997 and 9993 of 2024 in
CRP.No.3111 of 2023 and CMP.No.19270 of 2023)
vs.
Marathal (Died)
1.Palanathal
2.Lakshmi
3.P.Saraswathy
4.Sumathi
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 08:38:22 pm )
C.R.P.No.3111 of 2023
5.A.Moorthy
6.Komathi
7.Vijayalakshmi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil
Procedure Code, to set aside the order dated 08.06.2023 made in I.A.No.1 of
2019 in O.S.No.987 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate
Judge, Coimbatore.
For Petitioners : Mrs.AL.Ganthimathi
Senior Advocate
for M/s.M.Sriram
For Respondents : Mr.S.S.Swaminathan
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by
the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in
O.S.No.987 of 2014, dated 08.06.2023 dismissing the application filed by
the deceased 1st petitioner seeking rejection of the plaint.
2. The respondents herein field a suit for partition against the
deceased 1st petitioner. The deceased 1st petitioner was the sole defendant in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 08:38:22 pm )
the suit. Pending revision, he died and his legal representatives were brought
on record as petitioners 2 to 5. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs in
the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as per their
ranking in the suit.
3. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property originally belonged to
one Marappa Gounder (Senior), father of the plaintiffs 1 to 3, Marathal,
Palanathal and Lakshmi. The defendant is one of the brothers of the
plaintiffs 1 to 3. They also have another brother by name Marappa Gounder
(Junior). The plaintiffs 4 to 8 are the legal representatives of the deceased 1 st
plaintiff-Marathal. As per the plaint averment, the properties are self-
acquired properties of Senior Marappa Gounder and after his death, his five
children are entitled to 1/5th share each. Thus, plaintiffs 1, 2 and 3 are
entitled to 1/5th share each. The defendant and Junior Marappa are entitled to
1/5th share each. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that after the death of Senior
Marappa Gounder, the defendant and his brother Junior Marappa Gounder
entered into a Partition on 08.06.1983, dividing the properties between
themselves, without knowledge of the plaintiffs and therefore, a notice was
issued to them demanding Partition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 08:38:22 pm )
4. Subsequently, a suit was filed in O.S.No.709 of 2012 before the III
Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore against the defendant and the
legal heirs of Junior Marappa Gounder. During pendency of the said suit, the
legal heirs of Junior Marappa agreed to give share in the property to the
plaintiffs and as per their demand, another one separate suit was filed in
O.S.No.553 of 2014 against the legal heirs of Junior Marappa Gounder in
respect of other part of the suit property and the said suit was compromised
and based on the said settlement, the suit in O.S.No.709 of 2012 filed by the
plaintiffs were not pressed. Even though the legal heirs of Junior Marappa
Gounder admitted the plaintiffs right and agreed for partition, the present
defendant evaded the request of the plaintiffs and hence, the present suit was
filed seeking partition.
5. The deceased 1st petitioner/defendant filed an application in
I.A.No.1 of 2019 seeking to reject the plaint. It is the specific case of the
defendant that the earlier suit filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.709 of 2012
was withdrawn based on the compromise and therefore, the present suit for
partition on the same cause of action is not maintainable. It is the specific
case of the defendant that the suit in O.S.No.553 of 2014 was filed by the
plaintiffs only in respect of portion of the property allotted to Junior
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 08:38:22 pm )
Marappa Gounder and against the legal heirs of Junior Marappa Gounder
alone and the said suit was compromised and based on the said compromise,
the first suit filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.709 of 2012 was withdrawn. By
filing a suit in O.S.No.553 of 2014 in respect of the portion of the property
allotted to Junior Marappa Gounder, the plaintiffs admitted earlier partition
between the present defendant and his brother Junior Marappa Gounder.
Therefore, they are estopped form reagitating the issue and relitigating the
matter by filing the present suit for partition.
6. When the partition between the present defendant and Junior
Marappa Gounder dated 08.06.1983 was admitted by the plaintiffs by filing
the suit in O.S.No.553 of 2014 in respect of the share allotted to the Junior
Marappa Gounder in the partition deed, the plaintiffs accepted the partition
and therefore, they are not entitled to 5 equal shares by way of partition in
respect of share allotted to the defendant alone. It is also stated that the
present suit filed by the plaintiffs without impleading the legal heirs of
Junior Marappa Gounder and without including the property allotted to
Junior Marappa Gounder in the earlier partition, is not maintainable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 08:38:22 pm )
7. A perusal of the cause of action Paragraph No.IX in the plaint
would indicate that the earlier suit filed by the plaintiffs against the legal
heirs of eldest son of late Marappa Gounder (Senior) namely Junior Marappa
Gounder was filed only in respect of other part of the properties. The
relevant averment reads as follows:-
“IX. … … … when the plaintiff filed one suit for
partition in O.S.No.709 of 2012 before Hon’ble III Additional
Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore against this defendant and
the legal heirs of late Marappa gounder and after their due
appearance when pendency of the said suit except this
defendant other defendants were agreed to give share in the
property and as per their demand another one separate suit
was filed in O.S.No.553/14 against the legal heirs of eldest son
late Marappa gounder’s and in that one compromise petition
was filed in respect of other part of the properties and when
both suits were dismissed as settled out of court … … ...”
8. Therefore, it is clear that the present suit has been filed only in
respect of portion of the property allotted to present defendant-Ramasamy
and earlier suit in O.S.No.553 of 2014 was filed against the legal heirs of
Junior Marappa Gounder in respect of the portion of the property allotted to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 08:38:22 pm )
Junior Marappa Gounder in 1983 Partition. On the basis of the averment
contained in cause of action paragraph, it is clear that the suit has not been
filed in respect of entire estate of the deceased Senior Marappa Gounder.
The suit has been filed in respect of half of the estate of Senior Marappa
Gounder allotted to Ramasamy under 1983 Partition. It is also admitted that
as far as other half portion, O.S.No.553 of 2014 was filed by the plaintiffs
and the said suit was compromised.
9. From the averment, it is clear that in the present suit for partition,
all the sharers are not impleaded. According to the plaintiffs, Senior
Marappa Gounder had two sons namely Ramasamy and Junior Marappa
Gounder and three daughters namely the plaintiffs 1 to 3. The present suit
has been filed by the daughters against one son namely Ramasamy and the
legal heirs of other son namely Junior Marappa Gounder have not been
impleaded. Therefore, the suit is bad for non-joinder of sharers.
10. Further as mentioned earlier, the entire estate of Senior Marappa
Gounder has not been shown as the suit property, only half of the estate
which was allotted to Ramasamy in 1983 Partition has been shown as suit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 08:38:22 pm )
property. Therefore, the suit is also bad for partial partition. It is settled law
that in a suit for partition, partition shall be prayed for in respect of the entire
properties of the family, there cannot be a prayer for partial partition. The
plaintiffs claim in respect of the share allotted to the Junior Marappa, the
dispute was already compromised. There cannot be partial compromise,
without including one of the sharer namely the present defendant. Therefore,
on the face of the averment found in the plaint, this Court feels that the suit
is bad for partial partition and non-joinder of necessary parties.
11. However, this Court is not inclined to reject the plaint on the
ground of non-joinder of sharers and partial partition without affording an
opportunity to the respondents/plaintiffs. Therefore, the
respondents/plaintiffs are given four weeks time from the date of receipt of
copy of this order, to amend the plaint, to implead the legal heirs of Junior
Marappa and to include the other half share of the estate of the Senior
Marappa Gounder which was allotted to Junior Marappa Gounder in the
1983 partition. If the plaintiffs failed to cure the defects with regard to non-
joinder of necessary parties and partial partition within the time stipulated,
the plaint shall stand rejected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 08:38:22 pm )
12. With this direction, the Civil Revision Petition stands disposed
of. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is
closed.
26.02.2026
Index :Yes / No
Speaking order :Yes / No
Neutral Citation :Yes / No
dm
To
The I Additional Subordinate Judge,
Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 08:38:22 pm )
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dm
Pre-delivery order made in
26.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 08:38:22 pm )
