Mariamma Died v. Madhavan (Died),
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.08.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI Mariamma (Died) Yesudhas (Died) Vijayakumar (Died) Alphonse (Died) 1.Marystella Idapaul 2.Mary Glory 3.Emagulate Mary 4.Petter Paul 5.Mary Alphonse 6.Johnmary ... Petitioners Vs.
Madhavan (Died) 1.Palayyan Kannamma (Died) 2.Chellachi Page No. 1 of 11
3.Dhasammal 4.Rosammnal 5.Kolamma 6.Manas Solomen (Died) Gopalan (Died) 7.Palayyan Thankamoni (Died) Chellayyan (Died) Achuthan (Died) Nesamoni (Died) Thankayyan (Died) Gnanamma (Died) Podiyan (Died) Kochumoni (Died) Chellayyan (Died) Gopinathan (Died) 8.Kumaravelu 9.Thompson Page No. 2 of 11
10.Rengaswamy 11.Neelan (Died) 12.Nadankutty (Died) 11.Joseph, Rajayyan (Died) Selvamuthu (Died) Neelakandan (Died) 12.Pechi Muthamma Ramayyan Nadar (Died) Thankammal (Died) Chellappan (Died) 13.Veerapathiran Palakuruswamy (Died) Thankappan (Died) Sathia Vakeeswaran (Died) Ganapathy (Died) Kannammal (Died) Ponnamma (Died) 14.Saraswathi, 15.Ambujakchi, Page No. 3 of 11
16.Anbian @ Chellayyan 17.Sundaran, 18.Muthunayagam, Baskaran (Died) 19.Selvamon 20.Rajam 21.Ponnan 22.Natarajan 23.Sundari 24.Kumar 25.Usha 26.Sasi 27.Selvan, Gomathi (Died) 28.Gopinathan, 29.Sundaradhas, 30.Moni, 31.Kasthuribai 32.Vinokumari Page No. 4 of 11
33.Raman 34.Kunjan 35.Thankamoni 36.Saraswathy 37.Vasanthakumari 38.Ravi 39.Murugan 40.Vijayan 41.Lalitha 42.Padmini 43.Syla 44.Varghees 45.Thanislas 46.Ghabriel Ponnasam (died) 47.Kanakaraj 48.Sundarraj 49.Devaraj 50.Thankaswamy Panchali (Died) Page No. 5 of 11
51.Anitha 52.Geetha 53.Sindhu 54.Nelson 55.Santhakumari 56.Vasanthakumari 57.Ravikumar 58.Chellamma 59.Gigibai 60.Ramanibai 61.Rameshan 62.Chandrika 63.Sutheesan 64.Jegatheesan 65.Nalini 66.Rajendra Babu 67.Manumohan @ Asokan 68.Leelabai 69.Rajam Page No. 6 of 11
70.Sakunthala 71.Nesam 72.David Jeyakumar 73.David Jeyaraj 74.David Jeyalal 75.Immanuvel 76.Selvi 77.Little Flower 78.Gnanarosemari, 79.Bhavani 80.Sivakumar 81.Jeyakumari 82.Jeyapratha ... Respondents Prayer:- This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to call for the records of the fair and decreetal order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai in E.A.No.180 of 2016 in E.P.No.110 of 2014 in O.S.No.336 of 1969 dated 29.11.2017 and set aside the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.B.Christopher For R13 : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji For R34 : Mr.N.S.Ramakrishnadass Page No. 7 of 11
O R D E R
The above Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioners against the impugned fair and decreetal order dated 29.11.2017 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai in E.A.No.180 of 2016 in E.P.No.110 of 2014 in O.S.No.336 of 1969.
2. According to the revision petitioners, the plaintiffs filed E.P.No.110 of 2014 in O.S.No.336 of 1969 and filed E.A.No.180 of 2016 seeking exemption from impleading the legal heirs of the deceased 64th defendant namely, Raman S/o.Podiyan on the ground that he has no right in the suit property. However, the Executing Court without considering the above facts dismissed E.A., against which, this Civil Revision Petition is preferred.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that in the Judgement passed in O.S.No.359 of 2004, it was observed that I.A.No.1041 of 1990 was dismissed on the ground that the sons of Podiyan namely 64th and 65th defendants themselves filed counter affidavit stating that Podiyan had no right in the suit property and they are not necessary parties to the proceedings and the same was confirmed in the appeal filed by the 64th and 65th defendants.
Page No. 8 of 11
4. It is submitted that the lower Court ought to have rejected the contention of the 65th defendant for the reason that the order in I.A.No.1041 of 1990 was not produced by him in E.A.No.180 of 2016. It is further submitted that by virtue of Exs.P1 to P4, it is clearly proved that sons of Podiyan namely Raman and Kunjan have no right in the suit property and the 65th defendant is estopped from contending against Exs.P1 to P4.
5. It is further submitted that in a suit for redemption, if one of the defendant died, his legal heirs need not to be impleaded if his estate was represented by other defendants and therefore, the lower Court erred in dismissing the E.A.No.180 of 2016 in E.P.No.110 of 2014 in O.S.No.336 of 1969. The petitioners therefore pray for setting aside the impugned fair and decreetal order dated 29.11.2017 passed by the lower Court in E.A.No.180 of 2016 in E.P.No.110 of 2014 in O.S.No.336 of 1969.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the 34th respondent/65th defendant would submit that the 34th respondent/65th defendant has no objection to allow this Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned fair and decreeal order dated 29.11.2017 passed by the lower Court in E.A.No.180 of 2016 in E.P.No.110 of 2014 in O.S.No.336 of 1969.
Page No. 9 of 11
7. Considering the above submission made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner and the 34th respondent/65th defendant, the impugned fair and decreeal order dated 29.11.2017 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai in E.A.No.180 of 2016 in E.P.No.110 of 2014 in O.S.No.336 of 1969 is set aside.
8. Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 1969, the learned Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai is directed to dispose the E.P., expeditiously, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No cost. 03.08.2023 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No jen To The Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai.
Page No. 10 of 11
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
jen 03.08.2023 Page No. 11 of 11