R.Babu Alias Senthilkumar v. K.Kandasamy (Died) 1. Rajammal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16-02-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR CRP No. 45 of 2026 and CMP.No.92 of 2026 R.Babu @ Senthilkumar ..Petitioner(s) Vs K.Kandasamy (Died)
1. 1 Rajammal
2. D.Alamelu
3. S.Revathi
4. R.Selvakumar
5. G.Vijayalakshmi
6. R.Sukuna
7. R.Gangeswari Kaliammal (died)
8. Principal Manager Indian Bank, Salem Main branch, 101A, Arunachalam Street, Salem-636001
9. S.Nirmala 10.K.Vijayalakshmi
11.R.Lalithamani 12.S.Sowmiya 13.S.Shrithik 14.S.Vijayalakshmi 15.S.Rahul Karthik 16.D.Selvamani 17.Dr.N.Govindaswamy 18.S.Sanjeev Kumar 19.R.S.N.Ashvika 20.P.Thangammal 21.T.Ramani 22.I.Indira, 23.Suganthi Nachimuthu Govindaswamy 24.R.Rajasekaran 25.Kumar alias M.Chokkaiyan S/o.N.S.Muthugounder, (Sri Shakti Educational Trust) Door NO.1/76, Sokkaiyagounderkattuvalavu, Vanavasi Post, Mettur Taluk, Salem District-636 457 26.S.Perumal 27.P.Palanisamy 28.Jayanthi 29.M.Prabhakaran 30.S.Chinnusamy 31.P.Thambi 32.Sri Saravana Niketan Matriculation School NO.231/1 Mettur-Bhavani Main Road,
Nerunjipet, Anthiyur Taluka, Erode District-638311 33.Sri Saravana Academy No.122, Mettur-Bhavani Main Road, Nerunjipet, Anthiyur Taluka, Erode District-638311 34.Parameshwari Marriage Hall Mettur-Bhavani Main Road, Nerunjipettai Cross Dam-2, Nerunjipettai, Anthiyur Taluk, Erode District-638311 35.Sri Shakti Educational Trust No.27, Jalakandapuram Main Road, Behind ONS Kalyana Mandapam, Sanarpatti Kattuvalavu, Vanavasi Post Mettur Taluk, Salem District-636457 36.Soundyappan 37.Kaliyappan 38.Rajammal 39.K.Baskaran 40.Birundha 41.B.Latha 42.P.Abishek 43.Sagunthala 44.Umarani
45.Ammasai, 46.Lakshmi ..Respondent(s) Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and final order dated 14.10.2025 in IA No.13/2025 in OS No.65/2015 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Erode.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.V.P.K.Gowtham For Respondent(s):
Mr. M.Karthik for R10/Caveator
ORDER
The civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking impleadment of respondents 16 to 48 as party defendants in the suit.
2. The petitioner herein, who filed a suit for partition against the respondents 1 to 15, filed instant application seeking impleadment of respondents 16 to 48. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition for impleading, it was stated by the petitioner that respondents 1, 4 to 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 45 and 46 purchased various properties from various persons. After mentioning all these sale deeds from Paragraph Nos. 1 to17 in Page No. 72, it was stated by the petitioner that out of income from the joint family
properties and joint family business, the above said properties were purchased in the name of respondents 16 to 48. Therefore, according to the petitioners, those properties shall not be treated as separate properties of the proposed parties. It is also stated that the properties purchased out of joint family income should also be treated as the joint family properties and hence, the respondents 16 to 48 shall be impleaded as party defendants.
3. It is not the case of the respondents that respondents 16 to 48 are members of the joint family. Admittedly, they are all strangers to the family of the petitioner. If properties purchased in the name of third-party stranger, the petitioner is not entitled to plead that stranger purchased the property out of joint family income and hence, the said property acquired the character of joint family property. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that some of the respondents are vendors of the respondents 1 to 15. If the proposed parties are vendors of the respondents 1 to 15, they need not be impleaded for adjudication of the partition suit as they are not family members. The persons, who already sold the property in favour of family members, need not be impleaded for adjudication of the partition suit. Therefore, in the affidavit filed by the petitioner which runs into 74 paragraphs, the petitioner has not stated any clear reason for impleading the proposed parties namely respondents 16 to 48 as party defendants in the suit.
4. In view of the same, I do not find any reason to interfere with the final conclusion reached by the trial court. Accordingly, the civil revision petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No cost.
16-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order nr To The I Additional District Court, Erode.
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
nr CRP No. 45 of 2026 and CMP.No.92 of 2026 16-02-2026