High Court · 2025

CRP No. 56 of 2024CRP.No.56 of 2024P.B.BALAJI, J.Today, this matter is listed under the caption “For Being Mentioned” at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioners.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in Para No.3 of the order dated 13.08.2025 made in the above revision, the date of the sale deed has been wrongly mentioned as 22.03.2023 instead of 22.09.2023 and the year of the suit has been wrongly mentioned as 2024 instead of 2004 in para No.3 as well as in para No.7 and in the 5th line of the paragraph No.3, it has been wrongly mentioned as if the properties have been sold, pending the suit. In addition to that, in para No.7, inadvertently, a typographical error has crept in, wherein it has been mentioned as if this Court is inclined to allow the order of I.A.No.10 of 2023, which requires to be modified.3. In view of the above, the paragraphs No.3 & 7 of the order dated 13.08.2025 shall stand substituted with the following paragraph:- https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 56 of 2024“3. Mr.S.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, would state that the suit is one for partition, and separate possession of the property of Rangiah Naidu, father of the parties, and also the properties that were jointly purchased according to the plaintiff in the names of Rangiah Naidu and two of his sons, namely, Rajaram Naidu and Alavandar. The maternal uncle of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 and 10, from Mr.Rajaram Naidu had sold the properties belonging to him to the plaintiff in and by a registered sale deed dated 22.09.2023. In respect of the said property that was acquired from the said Rajaram Naidu the maternal uncle, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for declaration of the right in respect of other properties as against the 1st defendant, D.R. Damodharan. The said suit in OS.No.11/2004 came to be decreed by the District Munsif Court, Thiruvalur. However, the First Appellate Court has overturned the findings of the trial court and allowed the appeal.......7. In the light of the above, I do not find that the order of the trial court permitting amendment being sustainable. Consequently, I am inclined to allow the revision and set aside the order of I.A.NO.10/2023. Considering the suit is of the year 2004 and is at the part-heard stage, the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, shall expedite the trial and dispose of the same on or before 31.12.2025.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 56 of 20244. Registry is directed to carry out the aforesaid correction in respect of para Nos.3 & 7 in the order dated 13.08.2025 and issue a fresh copy of the order to the learned counsel for the parties.28.08.2025skt https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 56 of 2024P.B.BALAJI, J.sktCRP.No.56 of 202428.08.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 56 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13-08-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJICRP No. 56 of 2024ANDCMP NO. 222 OF 20241. G.R.Sridharan(died)S/o.Rangiah Naidu, Plot NO.1178, H Block, 26th Street, Ponni Colony, Anna Nagar West, Chennai-6000402.Srinivasan SridharanS/o.G.R.SRIDHARAN, Plot NO.1178, New No.4, H Block, 26th Street, Anna NagarWest, Chennai - 600 040.3.R.PramilaW/o.Ravichandran, , Plot No.6 SBI Colony, 2nd Street, Rajakilpakkam, Sembakkam, Kancheepuram, selaiyur - 600 073. Tamil nadu4.S.LokabiramanS/o.G.R.Sridharan, Plot No.1178, New No.4, H Block, 26th Street, Anna Nagar West, Chennai - 600 040. Sole Petitioner Died. Petitioners 2 to 4 are https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 56 of 2024brought on record as LRs of the deceased Sole Petitioner Viz.G.R.Sridharan vide court order dated.01/08/2025 made in CMP No.18116 of 2025 in CRP No.56 of 2024 by PBBJ.Petitioner(s)Vs1. G.R.Rameshbabus/o.Rangiah Naidu, kavankolathur Village, Tiruvallur Taluk and District2.VinodhGrandson of Late Rangiah Naidu, S/o.Late Krishnamurthy, Old Kesavaram village, Arakonam Tk, Vellore Dist.3.VivekGrandson of Late Rangiah Naidu, S/o.Late Krishnamurthy, Old Kesavaram village, Arakonam Tk, Vellore Dist.4.VigneshGrandson of Late Rangiah Naidu, S/o.Late Krishnamurthy, Old Kesavaram village, Arakonam Tk, Vellore Dist.5.R.KasthuriW/o.P.Kuppusamy, Pennalur Village, Uthiramerur Taluk, Kanchipuram https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 56 of 2024District6.G.R.Damodharans/o.Rangiah Naidu, Naidu Street, Perambakkam Village and Post, Thiruvallur Taluk.7.G.R.Alavandars/o.Rangiah Naidu, Naidu Street, Perambakkam Village and Post, Thiruvallur Taluk.8.ManjulaW/o.Late Balabadrian, Naidu Street, Perambakkam Village and Post, Thiruvallur Taluk.9.RasikalaW/o.Murali, No.19, Ayyavoo street, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-60003010.GajalakshmiW/o.Yuvaraj, C/o.Manjula Naidu Street, Perambakkam Village and Post, Thiruvallur Taluk.Respondent(s)PRAYERThis civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in IA No.10/2023 in OS No.33/2014 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur.CRP No. 56 of 2024For Petitioner(s):Mr.S.Ramesh https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 56 of 2024For Respondent(s):M/s.N.NithianandamORDERHeard Mr.S.Ramesh, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. N.Nithiannandam, learned counsel for the contesting respondents. 2.The plaintiff, aggrieved by the order directing the plaintiff permitting to amend the plaint by including certain properties that absolutely belonged to one Rajaram Naidu, has filed this revision petition. 3.Mr.S.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, would state that the suit is one for partition, and separate possession of the property is of Rangiah Naidu, father of the parties, and also the properties that were jointly purchased according to the plaintiff in the names of Rangiah Naidu and two of his sons, namely, Rajaram Naidu and Alavandar. Pending the suit, the maternal uncle of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 and 10, from Mr.Rajaram Naidu had sold the properties belonging to him to the plaintiff in and by a registered sale deed dated 22.03.2023. In respect of the said property that was acquired from the said Rajaram Naidu the maternal uncle, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 56 of 2024declaration of the right in respect of other properties as against the 1st defendant, D.R. Damodharan. The said suit in OS.No.11/2024 came to be decreed by the District Munsif Court, Thiruvalur. However, the First Appellate Court has overturned the findings of the trial court and allowed the appeal.4.Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff approached this Court and in S.A.No.526/2014 by judgement and decree dated 8.11.2019, the second appeal was allowed, and the plaintiff herein, who was the appellant in the said second appeal, was declared to be the absolute owner of the property which he had purchased from his maternal uncle, Rajaram Naidu. After the disposal of the second appeal, the other defendants, namely the petitioner in IA.No.10/2023, defendants 3, 5, 6, 7 & 10, have contended that they were not aware of the earlier suit initiated by the plaintiff against the 1st defendant alone, and it is their specific case that the said Rajaram Naidu proposed to give his property equally to all his nephews, and therefore these properties are also available for partition, and they should be included in the suit for partition. 5. The trial court found that there cannot be a partial partition and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, proceeded to allow the application for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 56 of 2024amendment, holding that if the properties are included, all issues can be decided in the same suit, and that there is no bar of res judicata or bar under Order II Rule 2 of CPC. Unfortunately, I am unable to sustain the findings arrived at by the trial court. Admittedly, even according to the petitioner in IA.No.10/2023, the properties are absolute properties of Rajaram Naidu, who is the maternal uncle of the parties, being the brother of Bakiyammal, wife of Rajgiah Naidu.6.It is not the case of the petitioners in IA.No.10/2023 that these are the properties of Rajaram Naidu, which also belonged to the joint family of Rangiah Naidu, and therefore available for partition. The present suit has been filed for division of the estate of Rangiah Naidu and his sons alone. In the said proceedings, the scope of the suit cannot be enlarged by bringing in the properties belonging to third parties to the family, who are only the brothers-in-law of Rangiah Naidu. Admittedly, when these properties are the self-owned properties of the said Rajaram Naidu, the cause of action or any right claimed in the said properties will be entirely different and it cannot be clubbed along with the present suit for partition, which pertains only to the said family of Rangiah Naidu. Moreover, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 56 of 2024without even challenging the sale deed dated 22.03.2003, the petitioner in I.A.No.10/2023 cannot seek for partition of the properties which are the subject matter of the said sale deed.7. In the light of the above, I do not find that the order of the trial court permitting amendment being sustainable. Consequently, I am inclined to allow the order of I.A.NO.10/2023.Considering the suit is of the year 2014 and is at the part-heard stage, the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, shall expedite the trial and dispose of the same on or before 31.12.2025.8. with the above direction, this civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently the connected miscellaneous is closed. 13-08-2025jrsIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 56 of 2024P.B.BALAJI J.jrsToThe I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur,CRP No. 56 of 2024AND CMP NO. 222 OF 202413-08-2025