Madrasreserved High Court · 2025

Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w. XXIII Rule 1A of C.P.C and Section 151 of C.P.C praying to transpose the Applicant/4th Defendant being legal heir of the deceased V.C.Jayaraman as 3rd Plaintiff in the above C.S.No.573 of 2012. For Applicant:Mr.K.Elangofor M/s.Krishna Law AssociatesFor Respondents – 1 & 3:Mr.V.Prakash,Senior Counselfor Ms.Shubharanjani AnanthORDERThis Application has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w. XXIII Rule 1A of C.P.C and Section 151 of C.P.C. for transposing the Applicant/4th Defendant being legal heir of the deceased V.C.Jayaraman as 3rd Plaintiff in C.S.No.573 of 2012. 2. The present suit was filed by one Mr.V.C.Jayaraman against the Applicant and Respondents herein. The Applicant is the 4th Defendant in the above suit. The 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant is the husband of Applicant/4th Defendant and son-in-law of the Plaintiff Mr.V.C.Jayaraman. 2/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3. The 5th Respondent/6th Defendant is a Partnership Firm which was established by Late Mr.L.K.Markandeyan, father of the Respondents 1 & 2/ Defendants 1 & 2 and husband of the 3rd Respondent/3rd Defendant. The business of the 5th Respondent/6th Defendant was running cinema theatres at Ayanavaram, Chennai.4. It is informed that initially, the business of 5th Respondent/6th Respondent Firm was carried on by the said Late L.K.Markandeyan as its proprietor. Later, the said Late L.K.Markandeyan and his two sons i.e., Respondents 1 & 2/Defendants 1 & 2 had entered into a Partnership Deed dated 04.10.1984. As per the terms and conditions of the said Partnership Deed, the net profit or loss of the partnership shall be ascertained after deducting all the outgoings and expenses including that of interest and remuneration if any payable to partners and the profit and loss so arrived at shall be divided among the Partners as under:Party of the First part 34%Party of the Second part33%Party of the Third part33%_____________100%__________3/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5. After the demise of said L.K.Markandeyan, the 5th Respondent/6th Defendant Partnership Firm was reconstituted, pursuant to which, the 3rd Respondent/3rd Defendant was included as one of the partners in the 5th Respondent/6th Defendant Partnership Firm.6. While so, in the year 2004, the Respondents 1 & 2/Defendants 1 & 2 had approached the deceased Plaintiff Mr.V.C.Jayaraman and offered to sell the suit schedule property situated at Ayanavaram, Chennai. The Respondents 1 to 3/Defendants 1 to 3 had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement dated 11.06.2004 with the deceased Plaintiff Mr.V.C.Jayaraman and agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs.3 Crores.7. Subsequent to the execution of aforesaid Memorandum of Agreement dated 11.06.2004, the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant (husband of the Applicant/4th Defendant) had executed a Settlement Deed dated 01.12.2008 in favour of his wife i.e., Applicant/4th Defendant (Plaintiff's daughter) and in favour of his daughter i.e., 4th Respondent/5th Defendant (Plaintiff's grand-daughter) in respect of 25% of the undivided share in the 4/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5th Respondent/6th Defendant Partnership Firm which was registered as Document No.4110 of 2008 on the file of the Sub-Registrar of Assurance, Anna Nagar, Chennai. 8. Since the Respondents 1 to 3/Defendants 1 to 3 failed to execute the sale deed, the deceased Plaintiff Mr.V.C.Jayaraman filed the present suit. Since the Applicant/4th Defendant also became the partner of 5th Respondent/6th Defendant Partnership Firm, the deceased Plaintiff Mr.V.C.Jayaraman filed a composite suit by arraying the Applicant as 4th Defendant and 4th Respondent as 5th Defendant.9. However, during the pendency of the suit, the Plaintiff Mr.V.C.Jayaraman died on 27.01.2024 leaving behind his wife, Mrs.J.Rani and his daughter, Mrs.N.Praba (Applicant herein) as his legal heirs. 10. After the demise of Plaintiff Mr.V.C.Jayaraman, the deceased Plaintiff's wife Mrs.J.Rani was impleaded as 2nd Plaintiff in C.S.No.573 of 2012 pursuant to the order dated 17.02.2025 in Application No.530 of 2025 in C.S.No.573 of 2012. Since the Application No.530 of 2025 in 5/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.573 of 2012 was allowed by this Court vide order dated 17.02.2025, now, the Applicant/4th Defendant has filed the present Application to transpose herself as a co-plaintiff.11. Mr.K.Elango, learned counsel for the Applicant/4th Defendant submitted that this Application is a formal Application and hence, the contesting Respondent/Defendants may have no serious objection for allowing this Application.12. Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 3/Defendants 1 & 3 submitted that the interest of the deceased Plaintiff is already represented by the deceased Plaintiff's wife, Mrs.J.Rani (mother of the Applicant/4th Defendant) as co-plaintiff and therefore, it is not necessary to transpose the Applicant/4th Defendant as 3rd Plaintiff in the suit.12.1. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that since the Applicant/4th Defendant is a partner in the 5th Respondent/6th Defendant Partnership Firm and the Applicant/4th Defendant along with her daughter, 4th Respondent/5th Defendant have been given 25% of the undivided share 6/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis in the 5th Respondent/6th Defendant Partnership Firm, transposing the Applicant/4th Defendant as 3rd Plaintiff in the suit would create conflict. The Applicant/4th Defendant and her daughter 4th Respondent/5th Defendant are entitled to 12.5% of undivided share each.12.2. It is also submitted that the suit is also hopelessly time barred since the Respondents 1 to 3/Defendants 1 to 3 had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Plaintiff Late Mr.V.C.Jayaraman on 11.06.2004, whereas, the present suit was filed only on 18.07.2012. Therefore, on this count, also this Application is liable to be dismissed.13. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Applicant/4th Defendant as well as the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 3/Defendants 1 & 3.14. The above suit was instituted by the deceased Plaintiff Mr.V.C.Jayaraman by arraying the Applicant/4th Defendant as a proper/necessary party.7/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

15. The Applicant/4th Defendant is one of the legal heirs of the deceased Plaintiff Mr.V.C.Jayaraman. The Applicant/4th Defendant is the daughter of Mrs.J.Rani (wife of the deceased Plaintiff Mr.V.C.Jayaraman). The said Mrs.J.Rani has already been impleaded as 2nd Plaintiff, in her capacity as the legal representative of the deceased Plaintiff Mr.V.C.Jayaraman. The Applicant/4th Defendant is the wife of 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant and mother of 4th Respondent/5th Defendant. 16. As per Order I Rule 3 of C.P.C., all persons may be joined in one suit as Defendants. For the sake of clarity, Order I Rule 3 of C.P.C is reproduced hereinbelow:“3. Who may be joined as defendants. - All persons may be joined in one suit as defendants where – (a) any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist against such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative and (b) if separate suits were brought against such persons, any common question of law or fact would arise.”17. As per Order I Rule 5 of the C.P.C., it shall not be necessary that every Defendant shall be interested as to all the relief claimed in any suit against them.8/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

18. In fact, as per Order I Rule 6 of C.P.C., the Plaintiff may, at his option, join as parties to the same suit all or any of the persons severally, or jointly or severally, liable on any one contract, including parties to bills of exchange, hundies and promissory notes.19. The present Application has been filed under Order XXIII r/w. Rule 1A of C.P.C. It has to be read along with Order I Rule 10(1) of C.P.C and Order XXII Rule 3 of C.P.C. 20. The point for consideration in the present Application is whether there can be a valid objection for transposing the Applicant/4th Defendant as 3rd Plaintiff in C.S.No.573 of 2012 merely because 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant had executed the Settlement Deed dated 01.12.2008 in favour of the Applicant/4th Defendant and 4th Respondent/5th Defendant and thereby, transferred 25% of the undivided share in the 5th Respondent/6th Defendant Partnership Firm in favour of them?9/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

21. The expression, “legal representative” is defined in Section 2(11) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.22. As per the said definition, “legal representative” is a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. Thus, without doubt, the Applicant/4th Defendant is one of legal heirs of the deceased Plaintiff Mr.V.C.Jayaraman. 23. Section 2(11) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is reproduced hereunder:“2(11). “legal representative” means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or issued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued.”24. In this case, the Applicant/4th Defendant has become entitled to 12.5% of the shares in the 5th Respondent/6th Defendant Partnership Firm 10/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis pursuant to the Settlement Deed dated 01.12.2008 executed by her husband viz., 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant. Thus, the Applicant was arrayed as 4th defendant in C.S.No.573 of 2012 filed for the following relief:-“(a) For a specific performance of the Memorandum of Agreement dated 11.06.2004 directing the Defendants to execute and register the Deed of Sale conveying the property described in the schedule to plaint in favour of the Plaintiff after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.47,00,000/- within a time frame to be stipulated by this Court and on their failure, direct an Officer of this Court to execute the Deed of Sale in respect of the plaint schedule mentioned property;(b) for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their men, agents, servants or any other person claiming through or under them, from, in any manner, whatsoever, dealing with, alienating, encumbering or creating charge over the property described in the schedule to the plaint;(c) declaring the Deed of Settlement dated 01.12.2008 executed in favour of the Defendants 4 & 5 by the 2nd Defendant and registered as Document No.4110 of 2008 on the file of Sub Registrar of Assurance Anna Nagar, in respect of 25% of undivided share in the property described in the schedule to the plaint as null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff.(d) for cost of the suit.”25. However, the fact remains that the Applicant/4th Defendant is also a legal representative of the deceased Plaintiff Mr.V.C.Jayaraman in her capacity as the legal representative as defined in Section 2(11) of the C.P.C. 11/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

26. Order XXIII r/w. Rule 1A of C.P.C. applies to a situation where a suit is withdrawn or abandoned by the Plaintiff under Rule 1 of the aforesaid Order. Under these circumstances, if the Defendant applies to the Court to be transposed as a Plaintiff under Order I Rule 10(1) of C.P.C., such a Defendant can be transposed as Plaintiff. 27. Thus, it is only under those circumstances, the Court shall pass an order transposing the Defendant as the Plaintiff having due regard to the question whether such a Defendant has a substantial question to be decided as against any of the other Defendants. 28. Order I Rule 10(1) of C.P.C. and Order XXIII r/w. Rule 1A of C.P.C are reproduced below:-Order I Rule 10(1) of C.P.C.Order XXIII r/w. Rule 1A of C.P.CRule 10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff. - (1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bonafide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real Rule 1A. When transposition of defendants as plaintiffs may be permitted. - Where a suit is withdrawn or abandoned by a plaintiff under Rule 1 and a defendant applies to be transposed as a plaintiff under Rule 10 of Order I the Court shall in considering such application, have due regard to the question whether the application has a substantial question to 12/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Order I Rule 10(1) of C.P.C.Order XXIII r/w. Rule 1A of C.P.Cmatter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just.be decided as against any of the other defendants.29. A reading of the aforesaid provisions make it clear that the aforesaid provision is not applicable as the suit has not been abandoned by the deceased Plaintiff. On the other hand, under the ordinary circumstances, the suit would have abated after the death of the Plaintiff, if no steps were taken to bring the legal representatives of the deceased Plaintiff on record. Therefore, strictly, under Order XXIII r/w. Rule 1A of C.P.C. has no application to facts of the present case.30. Under Order XXII Rule 3 of C.P.C., where a sole Plaintiff dies and if the right to sue survives, the Court on an application may in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased Plaintiff to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit. Order XXII Rule 3 of C.P.C. reads as under:“3. Procedure in case of death of one of several plaintiffs or of sole plaintiff.—(1) Where one of two or more plaintiffs dies and the right to sue does not survive to the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs alone, or a 13/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis sole plaintiff or sole surviving plaintiff dies and the right to the sue survives, the Court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit. (2) Where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall abate so far as the deceased plaintiff is concerned, and, on the application of the defendant, the Court may award to him the costs which he may have incurred in defending the suit, to be recovered from the estate of the deceased plaintiff.”31. There is no impediment that is discernible from a reading of Order XXII Rule 3 of C.P.C. for impleading/transposing of the Applicant/4th Defendant as the 3rd Plaintiff on a harmonious Order XXII Rule 3 of C.P.C. with Order XXIII r/w. Rule 1A of C.P.C. because even where the Plaintiff abandons the suit or withdraw from the suit, it Defendant can be transposed as a Plaintiff. Certainly, the Applicant/4th Defendant has had a right against her mother-in-law and brother-in-law viz., 3rd Respondent/3rd Defendant and 1st Respondent/1st Defendant. 32. Therefore, Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 151 of the C.P.C r/w. Order XXIII r/w. Rule 1A of C.P.C and transpose the Applicant/4th Defendant as 3rd Plaintiff along with her mother who was already brought on record as a legal representative of the deceased plaintiff.14/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

33. It is not open for the contesting Plaintiffs and Defendants to argue that since the Applicant/4th Defendant has 12.5% share in the 5th Respondent/6th Defendant Partnership Firm, ipso facto would mean that the Applicant/4th defendant is dis-entitled to be transposed as co-plaintiff. Even if, rights have accrued to the Applicant/4th Defendant under the Settlement Deed dated 01.12.2008, it cannot be said that the Applicant/4th Defendant is incompetent to represent the interests of her father (deceased Plaintiff Mr.V.C.Jayaraman) as the other legal representative after the death of her father. Therefore, I see no impediment in allowing this application. 34. In the result, this Application is allowed. Registry is directed to permit the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs to carry out necessary amendment in the cause title of C.S.No.573 of 2012 and list the C.S.No.573 of 2012, after the filing of amended plaint copy by the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs. 24.04.2025mrrIndex: Yes/NoSpeaking Order (or) Non-Speaking Order 15/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.mrrPre-Delivery Order inApplication No.531 of 2025in C.S.No.573 of 201224.04.202516/16