Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying to set aside the Fair and Decretal Order of dismissal dated August 16, 2022 passed in a petition under Order VI Rule 17 of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ['CPC' for short] in I.A. No.225 of 2018 of O.S. No.172 of 2016 on the file of 'the Additional Subordinate Court, Tindivanam' ['Trial Court' for short].

5. The plaintiff inter-alia in Paragraph No.6 of the plaint averred that Item No.8 of Suit 'A' schedule properties is a house site with building measuring 12 Cents within specific four boundaries, was orally divided between first plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2, and their brother - late Krishnan; 2 Cents were left for pathway and the remaining 10 Cents were equally divided among the four. The western 2 ½ Cents was allotted to the first plaintiff, the next 2 ½ Cents was allotted to first defendant, next 2 ½ Cents was allotted to Late Krishnan and the next 2 ½ Cents was allotted to second defendant. Separate Pattas were also sought to be obtained. Subsequently, with a view to defeat and defraud the plaintiffs' rights, fabricated documents as if he is entitled to 3 Cents and also as if his wife, the fifteenth defendant purchased 2 Cents in the said item and filed a Suit https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 05:36:57 pm )  C . R . P. N O . 2 3 O F 2 0 2 3 in O.S. No.15 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tindivanam and obtained a Judgment and Decree in his favour. Further, defendants 2 and 15 (husband and wife) fraudulently executed a Sale Deed in favour of sixteenth defendant. The first plaintiff executed a Gift Settlement Deed dated December 30, 2010 in favour of second plaintiff based on the oral partition qua Item No.8 of Suit 'A' schedule properties. But as the defendants failed to act in accordance with the oral partition, the said Gift Settlement Deed could not be brought into force. Hence, Item No.8 of Suit 'A' schedule properties needs to be partitioned by way of this Suit and that is why the second plaintiff has been added as a party. These are the averments contained in Paragraph No.6 qua Item No.8 of Suit 'A' schedule properties.

6. The second defendant filed written statement and the defendants 1, 6 to 8 and 15 adopted the same. It was inter-alia contended that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and liable to be rejected. The first plaintiff admitted the partition decree in O.S. No.15 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tindivanam. An appeal preferred against the same in A.S. No.43 of 2013 on the file of Sub Court, Tindivanam was also dismissed for default [however, when this Court checked the E-Court website, it is seen that the appeal was contested and allowed, but no https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 05:36:57 pm )  C . R . P. N O . 2 3 O F 2 0 2 3 Judgment is uploaded]. The Partition Deed and the Rectification Deed in respect of which declaration is sought for are acted upon and cannot be cancelled. It was further averred that the first plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2, and late Krishnan, in the said Partition Deed, all the joint properties except the house property [Item No.8 of Suit 'A' schedule properties] was partitioned. As far as the house property is concerned, it was partitioned orally prior to the said Partition Deed and that is the reason why the same is not mentioned in the Partition Deed. In the oral partition, 2 ½ Cents were allotted to second defendant and 2 ½ Cents were allotted to his wife / fifteenth defendant; out of the total 5 Cents [2 ½ + 2 ½], defendants 2 and 15 executed a Sale Deed in favour of sixteenth defendant in respect of 4 ½ Cents and later the said 4 ½ Cents was purchased by second defendant in his name from sixteenth defendant. Hence, the sixteenth defendant is not a necessary party and the purchased extent of 4 ½ Cents is second defendant's separate property in which the plaintiff has no right to seek partition. These are the averments in the said written statement among the other averments including that of non-joinder of necessary parties of sisters of first plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 and late Krishnan.

13. Heard on either side. Perused the materials available on record. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 05:36:57 pm )  C . R . P. N O . 2 3 O F 2 0 2 3

14. It is admitted case of the parties that the 12 Cents house property in Item No.8 of Suit 'A' schedule properties was not covered in the Partition Deed dated June 19, 2008 as well as in the Rectification Deed dated October 24, 2008 which are under challenge. It is also an admitted fact that before the said Partition Deed, there was an oral partition qua the said house property, though the allotment thereunder is slightly under dispute. They seek to amend to bring in pleadings to the effect that he purchased adjacent 4 Cents and the same was partitioned along with the 12 Cents house property as elaborated above. Whether the said 4 Cents was purchased through Sale Deed by the first plaintiff, whether the same was partitioned along with the house property and the allotment of shares in the oral partition, etc. can be decided only after trial. Moreover, the Suit filed by defendants 2, 15 and 16 in O.S. No.15 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tindivanam was decreed and it appears from E-Court portal that the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court was reversed in A.S. 43 of 2014 on the file of Sub Court, Tindivanam vide Judgment and Decree dated December 22, 2020, however, the Judgment and Decree are not available in the E-Court portal nor have been they filed before this Court by either of the parties. Further, though the matter has been posted for trial, trial has not yet commenced. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the proposed amendment is not going to cause any prejudice https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 05:36:57 pm )  C . R . P. N O . 2 3 O F 2 0 2 3 to the defendants, on the other hand, it would help to adjudicate the matter once and for all. The Trial Court is not right in dismissing the Interlocutory Application. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings and in the interest of justice, this Court is of the view that Civil Revision Petition shall be allowed.