06.12.2024CoramTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE v. LAKSHMINARAYANAN C.R.P

C.R.P.(PD).No.4824 of 2024For Petitioner:Mr.A.IlayaperumalFor Respondent:Mr.S.SubramanianORDERThis civil revision petition arises against the order passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri in I.A.No.4 of 2021 in O.S.No.209 of 2021 dated 08.11.2024.2. The civil revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. He filed O.S.No.209 of 2021, seeking declaration that the preliminary decree dated 04.08.2020 in O.S.No.2 of 2020, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court at Dharmapuri, as null and void, and not binding upon him. He also sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, encumbering or from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property.3. The case of the plaintiff is that the property originally belonged to one Singaram @ Pulichetty. The said Singaram @ Pulichetty had alienated the 2 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.4824 of 2024property in favour of one P.K.Muthusamy, who is the father of the plaintiff. The alienation was made on 30.06.1958. He added that one P.K.Ramalingam, the brother of P.K.Muthusamy and his paternal uncle, had purchased another portion from the very same Singaram @ Pulichetty on 22.09.1960. Thereafter, they had been in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. P.K.Ramalingam executed a “WILL” bequeathing the property purchased by him on 22.09.1960 in favour of the plaintiff and his brothers. Joint patta was also issued in their favour in the year 1966. Subsequently, a portion of the property was acquired from the plaintiff by the Government for formation of National Highway in Dharmapuri District. 4. The plaintiff further pleaded that since he and his brother had decided to partition the property, they entered into a deed on 26.11.2001. The suit schedule mentioned property fell to the share of the plaintiff. On the basis of the said document, he also obtained patta and has been in enjoyment and possession therefrom. He pleaded that, in his right as an absolute owner, he had mortgaged the property in favour of the IDBI Bank and subsequently, discharged the mortgage and obtained a receipt. 3 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.4824 of 20245. The plaintiff added that when he approached the Village Administrative Officer for the purpose of a possession certificate, he was informed that this property was the subject matter of a partition suit at the instance of the defendants in O.S.No.2 of 2020 dated 04.08.2020. On that date, the learned Subordinate Judge at Dharmapuri had passed a preliminary decree concerning several properties, one of which belonged to the plaintiff. Fearing that the defendants might usurp the property under the guise of the preliminary decree, he moved the court by way of the aforesaid suit. Along with the suit, he filed an application in I.A.No.4 of 2021 seeking for leave to file a suit for declaration of title at a latter date.6. Summons was served on the defendants in the suit. They pleaded that the property originally belonged to one Krishnachetty, who was thrice married. Krishnachetty did not have any male heirs. Therefore, he decided to adopt a child for continuing the lineage. He adopted his own grandson Singaram @ Puli chetty (the vendor of the plaintiff's father and uncle) on 11.11.1931. On and from that date, Puli chetty attained the status of Krishnachetty's son. 7. Krishnachetty, while in his sound and disposable state of mind, 4 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.4824 of 2024executed a “WILL” on 17.12.1931. As per the said document, Singaram @ Puli chetty got schedule “G” to the “WILL”. Under the document, the third wife of Krishnachetty, namely, Venkatammal was granted life estate with the vested remainder in favour of Singaram @ Pulichetty and his descendants, who would enjoy the property absolutely after the death of Venkatammal.8. It is not in dispute that Krishnachetty passed on and so did Venkatammal. The defendants claimed that under the “WILL”, they had been granted a right along with Singaram @ Pulichetty and therefore, the act of Singaram @ Pulichetty in alienating the entire extent in favour of the father of the plaintiff is improper. In addition, they pleaded that since Venkatammal only had a life estate, she could not have joined Singaram @ Pulichetty and aliente the property in favour of Ramalingam, the uncle of the plaintiff. Hence, they pleaded that the sale deeds executed in favour of the father of the plaintiff, as well as the uncle of the plaintiff, are null and void and unenforceable. They added that in order to settle the family disputes and to avoid disharmony in their family, they presented O.S.No.2 of 2020. Pending the suit, the friends and relatives intervened and the matter was compromised and the compromise 5 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.4824 of 2024preliminary decree had been passed. 9. On the basis of these pleadings, the learned Trial Judge framed the following issues : 1/ “O.S.2-2020 vd;w tHf;fpy; 04/03/2020 njjpapy; gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;l Kjy;epiy jPh;g;ghiz bgaustpyhdJ kw;Wk; thjpia fl;Lg;gLj;jhJ vd;w tpsk;g[if ghpfhuk; thjp bgwj;jf;fjh>2/ jhth brhj;ij tpy;y';f ghuhjPdk; bra;af;TlhJ vd thjp nfhUk; epue;ju cWj;Jf;fl;lis ghpfhuk; bgwj;jf;ftuh>3/ jhth brhj;jpy; thjp mDgtj;jpy; cs;shuh> thjp nfhUk; epue;ju cWj;Jf;fl;lis ghpfhuk; bgwj;jf;ftuh>4/ tpsk;g[if ghpfhuk; nfhuhky; epue;ju cWj;Jf;fl;lis kw;Wk; Kjy;epiy jPh;g;ghiz nfhhpa[s;sjhy; tHf;F epiyf;fj;jf;fjy;y vd gpujpthjp TWtJ rupah>”10. To the application filed under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, they filed a counter pleading that a cloud has been created over the 6 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.4824 of 2024plaintiff's title, therefore, he ought to have filed a suit for title at the first instance and having failed to do so, he is not entitled for leave. They relied upon the classic judgment of the Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. Buchi Reddy, AIR 2008 SC 2033.11. The learned Trial Judge took up the application for disposal. He dismissed the petition holding that no reasons had been given by the plaintiff seeking leave under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and consequently, he passed the order that he did. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is on revision before me.12. I heard Mr.A.Ilayaperumal for the civil revision petitioner and Mr.S.Subramanian for the respondents.13. Mr.A.Ilayaperumal, drawing my attention to the plaint, pleads that the cause of action to file a suit for title has not yet arisen, but in order to obviate any plea which might arise at a later date, he filed an application under Order II Rule 2 of the Code along with the plaint. He states that the reasons given in the affidavit are sufficient and therefore, the learned Trial Judge erred 7 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.4824 of 2024in dismissing the said petition.14. Per contra, Mr.S.Subramanian pleads that even when the defendants filed a written statement, they had denied the title of the plaintiff in clear and categorical terms. Therefore, the cause of action for filing a suit for title has already arisen and hence, leave under Order II Rule 2 cannot be granted.15. I have carefully considered the arguments on both sides and have gone through the records.16. The narration of the facts would show that the plaintiff had moved an application under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 31.08.2021, when he presented the suit in O.S.No.209 of 2021. The court ought to have taken the application under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure soon thereafter or at least after the summons were served on the defendants. Instead, the trial court waited for three years and more, from the date of presentation of the plaint and thereafter took up the application for disposal. The written statement of the defendants came to be filed on 21.10.2024. 8 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.4824 of 202417. As pointed out above, the plaintiff filed an application under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure along with the suit. On the date of presentation of the plaint, the plaintiff was under the impression that he has to seek liberty to present the suit for title at a later date. The fact that the defendants filed written statement 3 ½ years later does not take away the right of the plaintiff to seek for leave. The issue that the court should have considered is whether on the date of presentation of the plaint, the plaintiff was entitled to sue for title or was entitled to reserve his right to present the suit for title at a later date. 18. The affidavit filed by the plaintiff, which has been placed for my perusal, shows that since there were attempted disturbances by the defendants pursuant to the preliminary decree in O.S.No.2 of 2020 dated 04.08.2020, he reserved his right to file the title suit. The issue that the court should have considered is whether the cause of action for the plaintiff to seek for title arose on the date on which he presented the suit. 19. The cause of action for the plaintiff would have arisen not merely on 9 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.4824 of 2024passing of the preliminary decree on 04.08.2020. Only when further steps are taken in the form of filing an application for final decree, pursuant to the preliminary decree dated 04.08.2020 and putting it into execution does it arise. Mere creation of a document does not give a cause of action for a party to sue for title. 20. I do not have to labour too much on this point as this issue has been settled by a Division Bench of this Court in Kandasami Pillai v. Munisami Mudaliar, 35 LW 350 (1932). The bench consisting of Wallace and Cornish JJ., following the judgment of Privy Council in Bolo v. Koklan, 32 LW 338 (PC), held that a plaintiff would have to seek for declaration only when there is a threat to his right. The threat does not arise by the mere execution of a document, but when the said document is enforced. There should be a clear and unequivocal threat to the plaintiff over the property which claims to be his own and only then the cause of action to sue for title arises. 21. Let me now analyse the case of the respective parties and see whether there has been a clear and present danger for the plaintiff to seek for title. 10 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.4824 of 202422. A perusal of the written statement shows that at the highest, the case of the defendants is that Singaram @ Pulichetty did not have exclusive right over the property. This very plea concedes that Singaram @ Pulichetty had some right over the property, which had been bequeathed by his adoptive father, Krishnachetty. 23. The plea whether Singaram @ Pulichetty could have alienated the entire property in favour of the plaintiff's father and uncle are all matters which have to be decided at the time of trial. For the purpose of this application, it is sufficient that the defendants, who are the children of Singaram @ Pulichetty, do not deny the title of their father to the property. They only pleaded that Singaram @ Pulichetty had a fractional share. 24. It is too well settled but I have to reiterate even a fractional share in a joint family property is capable of alienation. While reading the written statement as a whole, I am not able to see a total denial of the title of the plaintiff. The defendants had also not set up a title in favour of any third party. Both the plaintiff and the defendants agreed that the property belonged to Krishnachetty and on the death of Krishnachetty, it devolved on Singaram @ Pulichetty, who is the vendor of the plaintiff's predecessors in title. 11 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.4824 of 202425. That being the situation, the cause of action to file a suit for title on the basis of the denial in the written statement cannot arise at all. In case, the court comes to a conclusion that the “WILL” that had been executed by Krishnachetty is true and genuine and the “WILL” had bequeathed properties to Pulichetty and his descendants, then the result would be that the plaintiff's father and uncle would have purchased the fractional share of Pulichetty. A court has the power under Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure even in a suit for declaration of title to pass preliminary decree for partition. This aspect has been discussed by me only in order to point out that the defendants cannot claim that the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title has no semblance of right, title, or interest over the property. 26. In the light of the above discussion, the civil revision petition is allowed. The order passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri in I.A.No.4 of 2021 in O.S.No.209 of 2021 dated 08.11.2024 is set aside. The application stands allowed. The plaintiff is entitled to reserve his right to file a suit for title or one for partition depending upon the result of the decree in O.S.No.209 of 2021. No costs. Consequently, the connected 12 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.4824 of 2024miscellaneous petition is closed.06.12.2024nlIndex: yes / noNeutral Citation: yes / noSpeaking / Non Speaking Order13 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.4824 of 2024To1.The Principal Sub Court, Dharmapuri.14 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.4824 of 2024V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.nlC.R.P.(PD).No.4824 of 202406.12.202415 of 15

C.R.P.(PD).No.4824 of 2024For Petitioner:Mr.A.IlayaperumalFor Respondent:Mr.S.SubramanianORDERThis civil revision petition arises against the order passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri in I.A.No.4 of 2021 in O.S.No.209 of 2021 dated 08.11.2024.2. The civil revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. He filed O.S.No.209 of 2021, seeking declaration that the preliminary decree dated 04.08.2020 in O.S.No.2 of 2020, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court at Dharmapuri, as null and void, and not binding upon him. He also sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, encumbering or from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property.3. The case of the plaintiff is that the property originally belonged to one Singaram @ Pulichetty. The said Singaram @ Pulichetty had alienated the 2 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.4824 of 2024property in favour of one P.K.Muthusamy, who is the father of the plaintiff. The alienation was made on 30.06.1958. He added that one P.K.Ramalingam, the brother of P.K.Muthusamy and his paternal uncle, had purchased another portion from the very same Singaram @ Pulichetty on 22.09.1960. Thereafter, they had been in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. P.K.Ramalingam executed a “WILL” bequeathing the property purchased by him on 22.09.1960 in favour of the plaintiff and his brothers. Joint patta was also issued in their favour in the year 1966. Subsequently, a portion of the property was acquired from the plaintiff by the Government for formation of National Highway in Dharmapuri District. 4. The plaintiff further pleaded that since he and his brother had decided to partition the property, they entered into a deed on 26.11.2001. The suit schedule mentioned property fell to the share of the plaintiff. On the basis of the said document, he also obtained patta and has been in enjoyment and possession therefrom. He pleaded that, in his right as an absolute owner, he had mortgaged the property in favour of the IDBI Bank and subsequently, discharged the mortgage and obtained a receipt. 3 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.4824 of 20245. The plaintiff added that when he approached the Village Administrative Officer for the purpose of a possession certificate, he was informed that this property was the subject matter of a partition suit at the instance of the defendants in O.S.No.2 of 2020 dated 04.08.2020. On that date, the learned Subordinate Judge at Dharmapuri had passed a preliminary decree concerning several properties, one of which belonged to the plaintiff. Fearing that the defendants might usurp the property under the guise of the preliminary decree, he moved the court by way of the aforesaid suit. Along with the suit, he filed an application in I.A.No.4 of 2021 seeking for leave to file a suit for declaration of title at a latter date.6. Summons was served on the defendants in the suit. They pleaded that the property originally belonged to one Krishnachetty, who was thrice married. Krishnachetty did not have any male heirs. Therefore, he decided to adopt a child for continuing the lineage. He adopted his own grandson Singaram @ Puli chetty (the vendor of the plaintiff's father and uncle) on 11.11.1931. On and from that date, Puli chetty attained the status of Krishnachetty's son. 7. Krishnachetty, while in his sound and disposable state of mind, 4 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.4824 of 2024executed a “WILL” on 17.12.1931. As per the said document, Singaram @ Puli chetty got schedule “G” to the “WILL”. Under the document, the third wife of Krishnachetty, namely, Venkatammal was granted life estate with the vested remainder in favour of Singaram @ Pulichetty and his descendants, who would enjoy the property absolutely after the death of Venkatammal.8. It is not in dispute that Krishnachetty passed on and so did Venkatammal. The defendants claimed that under the “WILL”, they had been granted a right along with Singaram @ Pulichetty and therefore, the act of Singaram @ Pulichetty in alienating the entire extent in favour of the father of the plaintiff is improper. In addition, they pleaded that since Venkatammal only had a life estate, she could not have joined Singaram @ Pulichetty and aliente the property in favour of Ramalingam, the uncle of the plaintiff. Hence, they pleaded that the sale deeds executed in favour of the father of the plaintiff, as well as the uncle of the plaintiff, are null and void and unenforceable. They added that in order to settle the family disputes and to avoid disharmony in their family, they presented O.S.No.2 of 2020. Pending the suit, the friends and relatives intervened and the matter was compromised and the compromise 5 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.4824 of 2024preliminary decree had been passed. 9. On the basis of these pleadings, the learned Trial Judge framed the following issues : 1/ “O.S.2-2020 vd;w tHf;fpy; 04/03/2020 njjpapy; gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;l Kjy;epiy jPh;g;ghiz bgaustpyhdJ kw;Wk; thjpia fl;Lg;gLj;jhJ vd;w tpsk;g[if ghpfhuk; thjp bgwj;jf;fjh>2/ jhth brhj;ij tpy;y';f ghuhjPdk; bra;af;TlhJ vd thjp nfhUk; epue;ju cWj;Jf;fl;lis ghpfhuk; bgwj;jf;ftuh>3/ jhth brhj;jpy; thjp mDgtj;jpy; cs;shuh> thjp nfhUk; epue;ju cWj;Jf;fl;lis ghpfhuk; bgwj;jf;ftuh>4/ tpsk;g[if ghpfhuk; nfhuhky; epue;ju cWj;Jf;fl;lis kw;Wk; Kjy;epiy jPh;g;ghiz nfhhpa[s;sjhy; tHf;F epiyf;fj;jf;fjy;y vd gpujpthjp TWtJ rupah>”10. To the application filed under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, they filed a counter pleading that a cloud has been created over the 6 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.4824 of 2024plaintiff's title, therefore, he ought to have filed a suit for title at the first instance and having failed to do so, he is not entitled for leave. They relied upon the classic judgment of the Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. Buchi Reddy, AIR 2008 SC 2033.11. The learned Trial Judge took up the application for disposal. He dismissed the petition holding that no reasons had been given by the plaintiff seeking leave under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and consequently, he passed the order that he did. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is on revision before me.12. I heard Mr.A.Ilayaperumal for the civil revision petitioner and Mr.S.Subramanian for the respondents.13. Mr.A.Ilayaperumal, drawing my attention to the plaint, pleads that the cause of action to file a suit for title has not yet arisen, but in order to obviate any plea which might arise at a later date, he filed an application under Order II Rule 2 of the Code along with the plaint. He states that the reasons given in the affidavit are sufficient and therefore, the learned Trial Judge erred 7 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.4824 of 2024in dismissing the said petition.14. Per contra, Mr.S.Subramanian pleads that even when the defendants filed a written statement, they had denied the title of the plaintiff in clear and categorical terms. Therefore, the cause of action for filing a suit for title has already arisen and hence, leave under Order II Rule 2 cannot be granted.15. I have carefully considered the arguments on both sides and have gone through the records.16. The narration of the facts would show that the plaintiff had moved an application under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 31.08.2021, when he presented the suit in O.S.No.209 of 2021. The court ought to have taken the application under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure soon thereafter or at least after the summons were served on the defendants. Instead, the trial court waited for three years and more, from the date of presentation of the plaint and thereafter took up the application for disposal. The written statement of the defendants came to be filed on 21.10.2024. 8 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.4824 of 202417. As pointed out above, the plaintiff filed an application under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure along with the suit. On the date of presentation of the plaint, the plaintiff was under the impression that he has to seek liberty to present the suit for title at a later date. The fact that the defendants filed written statement 3 ½ years later does not take away the right of the plaintiff to seek for leave. The issue that the court should have considered is whether on the date of presentation of the plaint, the plaintiff was entitled to sue for title or was entitled to reserve his right to present the suit for title at a later date. 18. The affidavit filed by the plaintiff, which has been placed for my perusal, shows that since there were attempted disturbances by the defendants pursuant to the preliminary decree in O.S.No.2 of 2020 dated 04.08.2020, he reserved his right to file the title suit. The issue that the court should have considered is whether the cause of action for the plaintiff to seek for title arose on the date on which he presented the suit. 19. The cause of action for the plaintiff would have arisen not merely on 9 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.4824 of 2024passing of the preliminary decree on 04.08.2020. Only when further steps are taken in the form of filing an application for final decree, pursuant to the preliminary decree dated 04.08.2020 and putting it into execution does it arise. Mere creation of a document does not give a cause of action for a party to sue for title. 20. I do not have to labour too much on this point as this issue has been settled by a Division Bench of this Court in Kandasami Pillai v. Munisami Mudaliar, 35 LW 350 (1932). The bench consisting of Wallace and Cornish JJ., following the judgment of Privy Council in Bolo v. Koklan, 32 LW 338 (PC), held that a plaintiff would have to seek for declaration only when there is a threat to his right. The threat does not arise by the mere execution of a document, but when the said document is enforced. There should be a clear and unequivocal threat to the plaintiff over the property which claims to be his own and only then the cause of action to sue for title arises. 21. Let me now analyse the case of the respective parties and see whether there has been a clear and present danger for the plaintiff to seek for title. 10 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.4824 of 202422. A perusal of the written statement shows that at the highest, the case of the defendants is that Singaram @ Pulichetty did not have exclusive right over the property. This very plea concedes that Singaram @ Pulichetty had some right over the property, which had been bequeathed by his adoptive father, Krishnachetty. 23. The plea whether Singaram @ Pulichetty could have alienated the entire property in favour of the plaintiff's father and uncle are all matters which have to be decided at the time of trial. For the purpose of this application, it is sufficient that the defendants, who are the children of Singaram @ Pulichetty, do not deny the title of their father to the property. They only pleaded that Singaram @ Pulichetty had a fractional share. 24. It is too well settled but I have to reiterate even a fractional share in a joint family property is capable of alienation. While reading the written statement as a whole, I am not able to see a total denial of the title of the plaintiff. The defendants had also not set up a title in favour of any third party. Both the plaintiff and the defendants agreed that the property belonged to Krishnachetty and on the death of Krishnachetty, it devolved on Singaram @ Pulichetty, who is the vendor of the plaintiff's predecessors in title. 11 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.4824 of 202425. That being the situation, the cause of action to file a suit for title on the basis of the denial in the written statement cannot arise at all. In case, the court comes to a conclusion that the “WILL” that had been executed by Krishnachetty is true and genuine and the “WILL” had bequeathed properties to Pulichetty and his descendants, then the result would be that the plaintiff's father and uncle would have purchased the fractional share of Pulichetty. A court has the power under Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure even in a suit for declaration of title to pass preliminary decree for partition. This aspect has been discussed by me only in order to point out that the defendants cannot claim that the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title has no semblance of right, title, or interest over the property. 26. In the light of the above discussion, the civil revision petition is allowed. The order passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri in I.A.No.4 of 2021 in O.S.No.209 of 2021 dated 08.11.2024 is set aside. The application stands allowed. The plaintiff is entitled to reserve his right to file a suit for title or one for partition depending upon the result of the decree in O.S.No.209 of 2021. No costs. Consequently, the connected 12 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.4824 of 2024miscellaneous petition is closed.06.12.2024nlIndex: yes / noNeutral Citation: yes / noSpeaking / Non Speaking Order13 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.4824 of 2024To1.The Principal Sub Court, Dharmapuri.14 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.4824 of 2024V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.nlC.R.P.(PD).No.4824 of 202406.12.202415 of 15