Sriraman v. Sethuraman

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17-03-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI AND CMP NO. 6120 OF 2026

1. Sriraman S/o The Late Duraisamy Naidu Molasur Village, Thindivanam Taluk Villupuram District Petitioner(s) Vs

1. Sethuraman S/o Late Duraisamy Naidu, Res at Molasur Village, Thindivanam Taluk Villupuram District 2.Muthuraman S/o Late Duraisamy Naidu, Res at Molasur Village, Thindivanam Taluk Villupuram District 3.Janakiraman S/o Late Duraisamy Naidu, Res at Molasur Village, Thindivanam Taluk Villupuram District 4.Rajaraman S/o Late Duraisamy Naidu, Res at Molasur Village, Thindivanam Taluk Villupuram District 5.Jayaraman S/o Late Duraisamy Naidu, Res at Molasur Village, Thindivanam Taluk Villupuram District 6.selvi

W/o Late Kuppuamy, Res at Molasur Village, Thindivanam Taluk Villupuram District 7.Mohanraj S/o Late Kuppuamy, Res at Molasur Village, Thindivanam Taluk Villupuram District 8.Jayaraj S/o Late Kuppuamy, Res at Molasur Village, Thindivanam Taluk Villupuram District 9.Mohanraj S/o Late Kuppuamy, Res at Molasur Village, Thindivanam Taluk Villupuram District Respondent(s) PRAYER To set aside the Order and decretal order dated 04.02.2026 made in IA.No.493 of 2025 in OS.No.136 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam For Petitioner(s):

MR.T.Dhanasekaran For Respondent(s):

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the Order and decretal order dated 04.02.2026 made in IA.No.493 of 2025 in OS.No.136 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam.

2. The petitioner herein filed I.A No. 493 of 2025 in OS.No.136 of 2022 to implead his brothers and sisters as defendants 2 to 9 in the suit. On hearing both sides, the Trial Court held that they are not necessary parities to the proceedings, accordingly, dismissed the application. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed the suit for permanent injunction and now the petitioner is taking steps for amending the prayer as partition suit, in such circumstances, brothers and sisters are necessary parties to the proceedings. But the Trial Court erroneously dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, he prays to allow this petition.

4. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Considering the fact it is a dispute between the family members regarding property belonging to Duraisamy Naidu, who is father of petitioner and respondents 1 to 5 ; but the first defendant claiming absolute right over the suit property based on the Will said to be executed by his father, which is under challenge. If at all a claim with regard to partition arise in future, all the parties are necessary parties. However, the Trial Court erroneously dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the finding rendered by the Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam, in I.A No. 493 of 2025 in OS.No.136 of 2022 is set aside. Thus, I.A No. 493 of 2025 in OS.No.136 of 2022 is

allowed. Further, Liberty is granted to respondents to take all defence before the Trial Court.

6. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No Costs. Pending petition, if any, is closed.

17-03-2026 pbl Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To

1. The Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam.

2. The Section officer, V. R section, High Court, Madras.

T.V.THAMILSELVI J.

pbl AND CMP NO. 6120 OF 17-03-2026