← Library
Madras High CourtCRP/360/2015dismissed

S.S.M. Elavarasan (Died) v. P. Elango

2018-12-05Honourable Mr Justice M.S. Ramesh6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 05.12.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH CRP.(PD).No.360 of 2015 in MP.No.1 of 2015 SSM. Soundappan (Deceased) Cause title accepted vide order of Court dated 22.1.15 made in MP.No. 1 of 2014 in CRP.SR.No.66864/14 1.M.S.Elavarasan 2.Mrs.E.Pushpa 3.M.S.E.Ravinder(minor) 4.M/s.Veena Textiles Ltd., A Public Limited Company within the meaning of Companies Act 1956, having its Regd. Office at 11-F, Gandhipuram Main Road, Komarapalayam, Salem District Rep., by its Director M.S.Elawarasan 5.SSM Brothers (P) Ltd., A Public Limited Company within the meaning of Companies Act 1956, having its Regd. Office at 11-F, Gandhipuram Main Road, Komarapalayam, Salem District Rep., by its Chairman and Managing Director, K.Chandrasekaran

6.SSM Lakshmi Ammal Matric. Hr. Sec. School an institution of the 12th defendant functioning at N.H.47 Road, Komarapalayam, Salem District rep., by its Correspondent.

7. SSM Lakshmi Ammal Nursery School an institution of the 12th defendant functioning at 97, Raja Street, Komarapalayam, Salem District rep., by its Correspondent.

..Petitioners vs.

1.P.Elango 2.M.S.Kummanan 3.M.S.Mathivaanan 4.Mrs.S.Pankajam 5.Mrs.E.V.Nirmala 6.K.Sudha 7.M.Vijayalakshmi 8.P.Eshwar (minor) 9.M.S.K.Purushothamman (Minor) 10.M.S.K.Chakravarthy 11.M.S.M.Dhandapaani 12.M.S.M.Lakshmi Ujjaini

13.Tan India Ltd. (In Liquidation) a Public Limited Company within the meaning of companies Act,1956 having its Regd. Office at 21, Gandhipuram Main Road, Komarapalayam, Salem District Rep., by its Managing Director Sri.P.Elango 14.Tan India Mines and Minerals Ltd., a Public Limited Company within the meaning of companies Act,1956 having its Regd. Office at 21, Gandhipuram Main Road, Komarapalayam, Salem District Rep., by its Managing Director Sri.M.S.Kumanan 15.Dawn Marketing and Agencies Company Ltd., a Public Limited Company within the meaning of companies Act,1956 having its Regd. Office at 335, Salem Main Road, Komarapalayam, Salem District Rep., by its Director Sri. R.Shanmugasundaram 16.S.S.Mari Chettair Trust a Public Charitable Trust having its Office at 117, Kalaimagal Street, Komarapalayam, Salem District.

Rep., by its Managing Trustee Sri.P.Elango 17.S.S. Maari Chettiar Inst. Textile Technology an Institution of the 12th defendant Functioning at Valayakaranu, Salem District Rep., by its Correspondent.

18.S.S.Maari chettiar Lakshmi Ammal Community Hall, belonging to the 12th defendant rep., by its Managing Trustee P.Elango Vattamalai, Salem Main Road, Komarapalayam, Salem District.

.. Respondents Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India praying to set aside the order dated 22.07.2014 passed in I.A.No.243/2014 in O.S.No.1236/2012 on file of the XIII Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. For Petitioners : Mr. N.P.Vijayakumar For RR1,5,13,16 to 18 : Mr.Ravi Raja : R8 & R9 minors rep. by R1 For RR 2,3,6,7,10 to 12,14 &15 : Mr.Gupta & Mr.Ravi

O R D E R

The order under challenge in the present revision is dismissing the petitioners' request to decide admissibility of memorandum of compromise filed before the Court below.

2. The memorandum of compromise which is the subject matter of the present revision is family arrangement dated 24.08.1993. The present suit is one for declaration that memorandum of family arrangement dated 24.08.1993 is legal and valid. The Court had come to the conclusion that the

legal validity of the said memorandum of family arrangement can be decided during the course of trial and hence had rejected the petitioners' prayer to decide the admissibility of the same. In the suit for declaration, when the memorandum of family arrangement recorded dated 24.08.1993 is questioned, the document would be a vital document. The ground raised before the trial Court is that the document is unstamped and therefore is not admissible in evidence. The trial Court had also taken into consideration that the suit is posted for trial and at this stage admissibility of the document was in question. It is not in dispute that the suit document was produced along with the suit, which was filed in the year 1998, renumbered in the year 2012. Nothing prevented the petitioners herein from filing this application and at an earlier point of time. Even otherwise, the question of admissibility can always be raised by the petitioners during the course of trial and final arguments.

3. As such, at this belated stage, it would not be appropriate to decide the admissibility of the same when the right is always available to the petitioner herein. As such, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners in view of the impugned order passed.

M.S.RAMESH, J.

vsn/dh

4. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. 05.12.2018 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No vsn/dh To The XIII Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

CRP.(PD).No.360 of 2015 in CMP.No.1 of 2015