IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 31.01.2017 CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA
Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No.1528 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.8315 of 2016
1. Jambagam
2. Dharmambal ... Petitioners ..Vs..
Jayalakshmi (Died) 1.V.S.Dhandapani ...Respondent/Respondent/2nd plaintiff/ 1st respondent in C.R.P
2. Girisan ...3rd respondent/3rd respondent/1st defendant/ 2nd respondent in C.R.P
3. Sundari ...4th respondent/4th respondent/2nd defendant/ 3rd respondent in C.R.P
4. Raji@Durgambal ...5th respondent/5th respondent/3rd defendant/ 4th respondent in C.R.P
5. Sulochana ...7th respondent/5th respondent/ 5th respondent in C.R.P
6. Ramajayam ...8th respondent/6th respondent/ 6th respondent in C.R.P
7. Manimegalai ...9th respondent/7th respondent/ 7th respondent in C.R.P
8. Alamelu ...10th respondent/8th respondent/ 8th respondent in C.R.P
9. Mohan ...11th respondent/9th respondent/5th defendant/ 9th respondent in C.R.P (Respondents 5 to 8 herein are remained exparte, before the Lower Court, hence notice may be dispensed with) Prayer : This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of C.P.C,praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 26.04.2016 made in I.A.No.199 of 2014 in I.A.No.115 of 2009 in O.S.No.116 of 1986 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai and consequently allow the said I.A.No.199 of 2014.
For petitioners : Mr.S.Mukunth for Mr.V.S.Victor Prasath For R1 : Mr.C.Deivasigamani For 2 to 4 :No appearance For 5 to 8 :Exparte For R9 :G.Sumitra O R D E R The petitioners in I.A.No.199 of 2014 in I.A.No.115 of 2009 in O.S.No.116 of 1986 who have come forward this revision challenging, the fair and decretal order passed on 26.04.2016, dismissing the said I.A. filed by them under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the property is owned by one Subbulakshmi. She died leaving behind one Kannammal who died leaving behind the legal heirs in the year 1962 and two other daughters Durgambal and Virudambal. These petitioners are the legal heirs of Jeyalakshmi, who is the daughter of Viruthambal. The said Jeyalakshmi filed the suit for partition and separate possession and after filing of the suit, she died leaving behind her daughter Jambagam and two sons Thandapani and Sathyamoorthy. The said Sathyamoorthy died and his wife Darmambal filed the application to implead her as a party in the final decree proceedings. The preliminary decree has been passed during the lifetime of Jeyalakshmi.
4. Even though, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Thandapani has preferred an appeal and he has got 1/2 share in the suit property and the revision petitioners may be impleaded as parties to the proceedings. They wanted to settle the issue between them. They have no objection to implead the proposed party, the revision petitioners as parties to the proceedings. The learned counsel Mr.C.Deivasigamani has made an endorsement to that effect and stated that he has no objection to implead them as parties to proceedings. The other contesting defendant, namely the 9th respondent who has purchased a property from the D1 and D2. The learned counsel would submit that he has also no objection for impleading the legal heirs as parties to the proceedings, because he has purchased property from other branch.
lR.MALA,J., nvi 4. Considering his arguments and since the revision petitioners are the legal heirs of Jeyalakshmi and one of the sons also has no objection, this Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
31.01.2017 nvi To The Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No.1528 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.8315 of 2016 http://www.judis.nic.in