Ponumani(Died) Vijayaraja v. E.Malathi(Died) V.Easwaran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.11.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI and CMP(MD)No.11128 of 2022 Pounmani (Died) 1.C.Vijayaraja 2.S.Sandeep : Petitioners Vs.
E.Malathi (Died) 1.V.Easwaran 2.E.Maheshwaran 3.E.Sathishkumar Gandhiammal (Died) 4.C.Latha 5.Raja 6.C.Venkateshwari 7.C.Suganya 1/6
8.M.Ramesh 9.K.Bothumani 10.A.Arulmozhi 11.Karthika 12.C.Malarvizhi 13.K.Kayalvizhi S.Chinnathai (Died) Ochammal (Died) 14.K.Kavitha 15.Prabavathi 16.Minor M.Lathika 17.Minor M.Hariharan 18.Karthikeyan 19.Latha 20.S.Jeyakodi 21.S.Sivaraman 22.M.Chitra 23.S.Lakshmipriya 24.D.Umadevi 25.C.Sangeetha 2/6
26.S.Rathinam 27.K.Sevika : Respondents [Minor Respondents 16 & 17 are represented through their mother / natural guardian, R.15] PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to call for the records relating to the fair and decreetal order dated 14.09.2022, made in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in O.S.No.354 of 2021, on the file of the Sub Court, Uthamapalayam and set aside the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.S.Kishok Kumar For Respondents : Mr.V.Easwaran Party-in-person - R.1 Mr.R.Senthilkumar for R.2, R.3 *****
ORDER
The petitioners' fathers are some of the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.354 of 2021. The suit was originally filed in the year 1985 for partition, before the Sub Court, Periyakulam. The suit was decreed partly on 24.04.1992. The appeal preferred in A.S.No.57 of 3/6
1993 was dismissed by the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, by judgment dated 13.09.1996. Challenging the same, second appeal was filed before this Court in S.A.No.1773 of 1996 and the same was dismissed as abated.
2.Final decree application came to be filed on 22.12.2014, wherein, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed. The Advocate Commissioner submitted his report on 18.12.2019, for which, the petitioners have filed their objections. They have also filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.2 of 2022 to scrap the Advocate Commissioner's report. The said application was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Uthamapalayam, by order dated 14.09.2022 and challenging the same, the present revision petition is filed.
3.Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the final decree application has been filed by the 4/6
respondents by including the properties of some third parties and the learned Advocate Commissioner has referred the same in his report. These properties, according to the petitioners, are not the properties belonging to their family. The suit is for partition amongst the family members. If the final decree is passed based on these materials, it would not be proper and therefore, they have filed the application to scrap the Advocate Commissioner's report. However, the same was dismissed by the trial Court.
4.This Court paid it's anxious consideration to the submissions made by the petitioners' Counsel. 5.The grievance of the petitioners is that some of the properties mentioned in the final decree application are not the properties of the petitioners' family and that if these properties are allotted in the final decree proceedings, they would be put to grave and irreparable loss. Therefore, they moved an 5/6
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk application to scrap the Advocate Commissioner's report.
6.This Court is not inclined to accept the said submission. The trial Court would pass appropriate orders based on the available materials and depending upon the rights of the parties, after taking note of the Advocate Commissioner's report, in accordance with law. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this revision petition.
Accordingly, this civil revision petition stands dismissed.
No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : Yes / No 23.11.2022 Internet : Yes gk To The Subordinate Judge, Uthamapalayam.
6/6