← Library
Madras High CourtCRP(MD)/1909/2022dismissed

Chidambaram v. Valliyammal

2023-02-15Honourable Mr Justice R.Vijayakumar6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.02.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR CRP(MD).Nos.1909 and 1910 of 2022 and C.M.P(MD).No.8637 of 2022 C.R.P(MD).No.1909 of 2022 1.Chidambaram 2.Venkatachalapathy 3.Ravikumar 4.Masoodhu Beevi 5.Shahul Hameed 6.Petchiyammal 7.Selvi 8.Petchiyammal 9.Kannagi 10.Shanmugapriya 11.Sathyakumari 12.Sambathsingh ..Petitioners/Petitioners/Petitioners/Defendants 1 to 3 & 5 to 13 Vs.

1.Valliyammal 2.Ajitha 3.Ganesh ... Respondents 1 to 3/Respondents 1 to 3/Proposed respondents2 to 4/proposed plaintiffs 2 to 4 Shanmugam (died) through his power agents 1.Ganesh 2.Sugadev .. Respondent/Plaintiff PRAYER : Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order 22.07.2022 passed in I.A.No.5 of 2021 in I.A.No.4 of 2020 in O.S.No.23 of 2020 on the file of the learned Subordinate Court, Sankarankovil. 1/6

For Petitioners : Mr.M.P.Senthil For Respondents : Mr.S.Meenakshisundram Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Sengu Vijay (for R1 to R3) C.R.P(MD).No.1910 of 2022 1.Chidambaram 2.Venkatachalapathy 3.Ravikumar 4.Masoodhu Beevi 5.Shahul Hameed 6.Petchiyammal 7.Selvi 8.Petchiyammal 9.Kannagi 10.Shanmugapriya 11.Sathyakumari 12.Sambathsingh ..Petitioners/Petitioners 1 to 3 & 5 to 13/ Defendants 1 to 3 & 5 to 13 Vs.

Shanmugam (died) through his power agents 1.Ganesh, 2.Sugadev .. Plaintiff 1.Ganesh 2.Bagathsingh 3.Sugadev 4.Rajaguru ... Respondents 1 to 4/Respondents 1 to 4 /Proposed plaintiffs 2 to 5 5.Purushothaman ... 5th Respondent/4th Respondent/4th Defendant PRAYER : Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order 22.07.2022 passed in I.A.No.6 of 2022 in O.S.No.23 of 2020 on the file of the learned Subordinate Court, Sankarankovil.

For Petitioners : Mr.M.P.Senthil For Respondents : Mr.S.Meenakshisundram Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Sengu Vijay (for R1 to R4) 2/6

COMMON ORDER O.S.No.23 of 2020 was filed for the relief of permanent injunction and for declaration that the sale deed dated 05.09.2005 and 04.07.2014 are null and void. The plaintiff had further prayed that the settlement deed dated 31.01.2018 is null and void and for other consequential relief. The defendants had filed I.A.No.4 of 2020 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint. While the said application was pending, the plaintiff had passed away and some of the legal heirs of the plaintiff had filed I.A.No.6 of 2022 to get themselves impleaded as legal heirs of the plaintiff on the basis of Will said to have been executed by the plaintiff on 20.11.2020. The said application in I.A.No.6 of 2022 was allowed.

2. In the meantime, the defendants had filed I.A.No.5 of 2021 to implead the legal heirs, who were not beneficiaries in the said Will, in order to secure their rights. I.A.No.5 of 2021 filed by the defendants was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the plaintiff is the dominus litus and hence, the defendants have no locus standi to contend that who should represent the plaintiff. The order passed in I.A.No.6 of 2022 and I.A.No.5 of 2021 are under challenge in the revision petitions. 3/6

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the revision petitions has contended that if some of the legal heirs are left out and ultimately I.A.No.4 of 2020 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed, the left out legal heirs would raise an objection with regard to the validity of the order to be passed in I.A.No.4 of 2020. Hence, by way of abundant caution, he would like to implead the legal heirs, who are not beneficiaries under the Will dated 20.11.2020.

4. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that the defendants are not the family members of the plaintiff and hence, they have no locus standi to question the validity or genuineness of the Will dated 20.11.2020. That apart, the left out legal heirs were shown as parties in I.A.No.5 of 2021. Though they have appeared through their counsel, they have not chosen to challenge the order passed in I.A.No.5 of 2021. It clearly establishes that, the legal heirs, who were impleaded in I.A.No.6 of 2020, have been admitted to be proper legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. In such view of the matter, he contended that the defendants, who are third parties to the suit, cannot have any objection to the legal heirs of the plaintiff.

4/6

5. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side.

6. The present revision petitions have been filed based on a misapprehension that the left out legal heirs of the plaintiff are likely to challenge an order to be passed in I.A.No.4 of 2020. The left out legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff were shown as proposed parties in I.A.No. 5 of 2021 and they have not chosen to challenge the dismissal of the said impleading application. Therefore, the apprehension on the part of the defendants that on a future date, the left out legal heirs are likely to challenge an order that is to be passed in I.A.No.4 of 2020 is unfounded and therefore, the present Civil Revision Petitions are not maintainable and they are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.

15.02.2023 Index :

Yes / No Internet :

Yes / No Rmk To

1. The Subordinate Judge, Sankarankovil.

5/6

R.

VIJAYAKUMAR ,J., Rmk Order made in CRP(MD).Nos.1909 and 1910 of 2022 Dated:

15.02.2023 6/6