Madras High Court
V.Sampathkumar vs Rajammal (Died) on 14 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Order reserved on : 27.10.2025 Order pronounced on : 14.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP.Nos.2721, 2724, 2742 & 2743 of 2024
& CMP.No.14385 of 2024
V.Sampathkumar ... Petitioner in all CRPs
Vs.
Rajammal (Died)
Kanakambal (Died)
Selvam (Died)
1.Raman
2.Govindan
3.Lavanya
4.Ramya
5.Dharani
6.Vikram
7.Pavunambal
8.Jayaraman
9.Mohan Gandhi
10.Pushpalatha
11.Mallika
12.Chithra ... Respondents in all CRPs
Common Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed in I.A.Nos.12, 15, 13 &
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:25:35 pm )
14 of 2024 in I.A.Nos.7 & 8 of 2023 in I.A.No.274 of 2012 in O.S.No.27 of
1989 on the file of the Additional Sub-Court, Dharmapuri, dated
20.03.2024.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Kumarasamy in all CRPs
For Respondents : Mr.Ravi Anantha Padmanabhan
Senior Counsel for R11 in all CRPs
COMMON ORDER
These revisions arise out of dismissal of applications under Section 5, as well as Order IX, Rule 13 of CPC, filed by the revision petitioner and applications for amendment filed by the plaintiffs being allowed.
2.I have heard Mr.B.Kumarasamy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.Ravi Anantha Padmanabhan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents in all the revision petitions.
3.The learned counsel, Mr.B.Kumaraswamy would submit that the suit was originally filed by the respondents for partition in O.S.No.27 of 1989. The father of the revision petitioner was the first defendant in the said 2/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:25:35 pm ) suit. The suit came to be decreed and a preliminary decree was passed on 19.07.1989 and the same was challenged by the father of the petitioner in A.S.No.747 of 1990 and the said first appeal was also dismissed on 28.08.2008 by this Court. A Special Leave to Petition, challenging the dismissal of the said appeal was also unsuccessful before the Honourable Supreme Court. Thereafter, a final decree application has been filed in I.A.No.60 of 2010 and the same has been transferred and re-numbered as I.A.No.274 of 2012. Pending the said final decree application, the respondents/plaintiffs moved an application in I.A.No.538 of 2016, seeking amendment of the plaint, preliminary decree and also the application for final decree. The said application was allowed by the trial Court. However, on revision in CRP.No.1576 of 2017, the said order in I.A.No.538 of 2016 was set aside and the matter was remitted to the trial Court for fresh consideration, by order dated 19.10.2022.
4.According to Mr.B.Kumarasamy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, without proceeding with I.A.No.538 of 2016, the plaintiffs took out a fresh application in I.A.No.101 of 2021 and subsequently, they have chosen to withdraw I.A.No.538 of 2016 on 24.08.2023. However, 3/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:25:35 pm ) Mr.B.Kumarsamy fairly admits that the said I.A.No.101 of 2021 came to be allowed and aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed CRP.No.700 of 2023 which was disposed of by this Court on 24.08.2023, with directions. Pursuant to the same, the respondents have filed I.A.No.7 of 2024 and I.A.No.8 of 2024, one for amendment of the preliminary decree and the other for amendment of the final decree.
5.The grievance of the petitioner is that the applications are not maintainable, since this Court, while disposing of CRP.No.700 of 2023, permitted amendment of the description of the suit property alone and did not permit impleading of new parties, including the legal heirs/representatives of deceased parties to the lis. It is further contended by Mr.B.Kumarasamy that the applications filed by the petitioner with minimum delay and satisfactory explanation have been rejected by the trial Court, without even giving a fair opportunity to the petitioner to contest the applications in I.A.No.7 of 2023 and I.A.No.8 of 2023. He would further state that when this Court had remitted the matter to the trial Court to decide I.A.No.538 of 2016, with specific directions, it was not open to the petitioner to even take out fresh applications in I.A.No.7 of 2023 and 4/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:25:35 pm ) I.A.No.8 of 2023 and therefore, all these ought to be brought to the notice of the trial Court and he seeks for the revisions being allowed and a direction to be issued to the trial Court to decide I.A.No.7 of 2023 and I.A.No.8 of 2023 afresh, after hearing the petitioner herein. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following decisions:
1.Kunhayammed and others Vs. State of Kerala and another, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 359.
2.Balbir Singh and another etc Vs. Baldev Singh (D) through his Lrs and others etc, in Civil Appeal Nos.563-566 of 2025 dated 17.01.2025.
6.Per contra, Mr.Ravi Anantha Padmanabhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that no serious prejudice is caused to the petitioner, by allowing the amendment of the preliminary decree and final decree in I.A.No.7 of 2023 and I.A.No.8 of 2023. He would further state that in the initial round, the respondents were non-suited on the ground that without amending the plaint, it was not permissible for them to seek amendment of the preliminary decree and final decree and therefore, it necessitated the respondents/plaintiffs to file I.A.No.101 of 2021 seeking amendment of the plaint and when the said amendment application was allowed by the trial Court and the order was also upheld by this Court in 5/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:25:35 pm ) CRP.No.700 of 2023, by order dated 28.04.2023, according to Mr.Ravi Anantha Padmanabhan, learned Senior Counsel, it is not open to the petitioner to now challenge the orders passed in I.A.No.7 of 2023 and I.A.No.8 of 2023, which are only merely consequential amendments to be carried out in the preliminary decree as well as the final decree.
7.Mr.Ravi Anantha Padmanabhan, learned Senior Counsel would further state that the suit for partition has been filed way back in the year 1989 and somehow or the other, the petitioner and before him, his father, after having agitated the matter up to the Honourable Supreme Court have been attempting to defeat the legitimate rights of the respondents. The learned Senior Counsel would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision petitions.
8.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel to the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents and I have also independently gone through the records, including the orders impugned in these revision petitions. 6/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:25:35 pm )
9.It is not in dispute that a preliminary decree came to be passed even as early as in 1989 and the challenge to the preliminary decree was unsuccessful, not only before this Court in first appeal, but also before the Honourable Supreme Court. Thereafter, a final decree application has been filed in I.A.No.60 of 2010. Realizing certain mistakes in the description of the properties, the respondents took out an application in I.A.No.538 of 2016. Though the trial Court allowed the application, this Court in CRP.No.1576 of 2017, by order dated 19.10.2022, set aside the order and remitted the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration, after giving an opportunity to both parties.
10.Though this Court set aside the order in I.A.No.538 of 2016, the respondents did not prosecute the said application and in fact, they have chosen to withdraw the said application on 24.08.2023. In the meantime they have filed an application in I.A.No.101 of 2021, once again seeking amendment. The trial Court allowed the application and the revision petitioner herein challenged the said order of the trial court in CRP.No.700 of 2023. This Court dismissed the civil revision petition, holding that it was necessary for amending the plaint schedule, more specifically, the 7/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:25:35 pm ) description of the suit schedule property. The said order in CRP.No.700 of 2023 has become final.
11.Though it is feebly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under the guise of the present amendments, the petitioner is trying to seek amendment of over and above what was permitted by this Court, I am unable to countenance said submissions. Even before this Court in CRP.No.700 of 2023, it has been clearly brought to the notice of the trial Court that it is only pursuant to the Advocate Commissioner's report that the respondents came to know about the misdescription of the property and therefore, it was necessary for the amendment of the plaint. It is only consequent to the amendment of the plaint which was ordered by the trial Court and also confirmed by this Court in CRP.No.700 of 2023 that applications in I.A.No.7 of 2023 and I.A.No.8 of 2023 were taken out to carry out suitable amendments in the preliminary decree as well as the final decree.
12.In fact, the objections of the petitioner were already considered by 8/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:25:35 pm ) this Court, while disposing of CRP.No.700 of 2023 and this Court found that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner and only in order to do substantial justice to the parties, the amendment was necessary and it was upheld. In the light of the above, I do not see how the petitioner is, in any manner, prejudiced by the order passed in I.A.No.7 of 2023 and I.A.No.8 of 2023, permitting amendment of the preliminary decree and final decree respectively.
13.Even insofar as the array of parties, I find that though Mr.B.Kumarasamy, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this Court in CRP.No.1576 of 2017, remitted the matter only for the purposes of amending the description and therefore, it is not open to the respondents to seek implement of the legal representatives of the deceased respondents, I am unable to countenance the said submission as well. In fact, I find that the proposed parties have already been impleaded and when this Court was hearing a revision in CRP.No.1311 of 2023 at the instance of the revision petitioner herein, this Court recorded the subsequent developments, regarding impleadment of the legal heirs of both the deceased plaintiffs as well as the defendants and proceeded to record the same and dismiss the 9/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:25:35 pm ) revision petition as infructuous. Therefore, I do not see any merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner that the petitioner has valid objections for permitting amendments in I.A.No.7 of 2023 and I.A.No.8 of 2023 and therefore, they should be given a fair opportunity.
14.In fact, the trial Court has rightly found that the applications are only consequential amendments that have been sought for, pursuant to the order, permitting amendment of the plaint. Further, the trial Court has also found that despite sufficient opportunities being granted to the petitioner and adjourning the matter on three occasions, counter has not been filed and only under such circumstances, the Court has dismissed the applications filed by the revision petitioner. I do not see any error committed by the trial Court in dismissing the said applications.
15.As already discussed herein above, consequent to the amendment of the plaint being ordered and it is only pursuant to such amendment that the preliminary decree and final decree are now sought to be amended in I.A.No.7 of 2023 and I.A.No.8 of 2023, I do not see any prejudice being caused to the petitioner. As rightly contended by the learned Senior 10/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:25:35 pm ) Counsel, the suit was filed way back in 1989 and the preliminary decree itself was passed in the same year and despite passage of 36 years, the respondents have not been able to enjoy the fruits of the decree passed in their favour and the present applications appear to be clearly intended to delay and protract the proceedings and delay the inevitable. In the light of the above, I do not see any merit in these revisions. The orders passed by the trial Court do not call for any interference.
16.In Kunhayammed's case, cited supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that doctrine of merger is a common law remedy based on principles of propriety in the hierarchy of judicial system. In terms of this doctrine, the subordinate forum's decision merges with the appellate or revisional court's decision and thereafter only the latter exists in the eye of law. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, even in this decision, clearly held that the applicability of the doctrine would depend on the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the supervisor forum and the content and subject matter of the challenge.
11/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:25:35 pm )
17.In Balbir Singh's case, cited supra, the Apex Court held that there cannot be more than one operative decree at a given point of time and the doctrine of merger applies irrespective of whether the appellate court has affirmed, modified and reversed the decree of the trial court. I do not see how this decision will apply to the facts of the present case, especially when the first amendment application in I.A.No.201 of 2021 was allowed and this Court confirmed the said order and it has also attained finality.
18.In fine, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Considering that the final decree application is pending right from 2010, I direct the Additional Sub-Court, Dharmapuri, to dispose of the same on merits and accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
14.11.2025 Neutral Citation: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order Index : Yes / No ata 12/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:25:35 pm ) P.B. BALAJI,J.
ata To The Additional Sub-Court, Dharmapuri.
Pre-delivery order made in CRP.Nos.2721, 2742, 2724 & 2743 of 2024 & CMP.No.14385 of 2024 14.11.2025 13/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:25:35 pm )