SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 3103

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.
R.Sivasubramaniyan - Appellant
Versus
R.Periasamy - Respondent
C.R.P.(P.D)No.1361 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.10578 of 2021
Decided on : 22-10-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan
For the Respondents: Mrs.Chitra Sampath (Senior Counsel) for Mr.T.S.Baskaran

Headnote:

Civil Procedure code, 1908 - Section 10 and 151 - Administrators General Act, 1963 - Section 10 - Original Side Rules - Order XXV, Rule 42 - Civil Revision Petition filed challenging order passed by learned I Additional District Judge - First respondent filed O.S. on file of the I Additional District Court for relief of partition of A Schedule properties into four equal shares and allotting two shares contiguously; partition of B Schedule property into 16 equal shares and allotting six shares contiguously to plaintiff; granting permanent injunction restraining petitioner/first defendant from alienating and encumbering suit properties till partition takes place - Suit was filed against petitioner and four others - Petitioner filed I.A. under Section 10 and 151 of C.P.C., for staying further proceedings in O.S. till disposal of O.P. pending on file of this court and till it attains finality - This petition was dismissed by learned I Additional District Judge - Against said dismissal order, Civil Revision Petition is preferred – Held, as rightly found in order passed in O.P., this petition was filed only to see that suit properties are not partitioned and shares are not allotted to persons entitled - Petitioner has not only initiated O.P., he has also filed petition to reject plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., petition to quash plaint in O.S. under Article 227 of Constitution of India, he filed transfer petition, and in all these attempts, he was met with failures - Again, he is still prosecuting O.P. or in proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court - Petitioner proposed a settlement with unreasonable terms - That was not agreeable to first respondent - First respondent claims that he is claiming only his rightful share in suit properties and nothing more and nothing else - Petitioner is not agreeable for amicable partition - This court finds that taking advantage of his position as an Advocate and legal knowledge he has, petitioner is trying to put up blocks at every stage to see that suit properties are not partitioned - Stay petition filed under Section 10 C.P.C. has no merits - Civil Revision Petition dismissed.

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed in I.A.249 of 2015 in O.S.No.156 of 2014 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Erode. The first respondent filed O.S.No.156 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Erode for the relief of partition of A Schedule properties into four equal shares and allotting two shares contiguously; partition of B Schedule property into 16 equal shares and allotting six shares contiguously to the plaintiff; granting permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/first defendant from alienating and encumbering the suit properties till the partition takes place. The suit was filed against the petitioner and four others. The petitioner filed I.A.No.249 of 2015 under Section 10 and 151 of C.P.C., for staying the further proceedings in O.S.No.156 of 2014 till the disposal of O.P.No.163 of 2013 pending on the file of this court and till it attains finality. This petition was dismissed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Erode. Against the said dismissal order, this Civil Revision Petition is preferred.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition in O.P.No.163 of 2013 was filed under Section 10 of the Administrators General Act, 1963 r/w Order XXV, Rule 42 of the Original Side Rules. This petition was filed against the plaintiff in O.S.No.156 of 2014, Periyasamy and seven others including defendants 2 and 3 in O.S.No.156 of 2014. O.P.No.163 of 2013 was filed by the petitioner and three others to take possession of the assets of the estate of K.S.Ramasamy (since deceased) situated within the state of Tamil Nadu and to hold, deposit and realise, sell or invest the same according to the provisions of the said Act and with the further direction under Section 10 (2) of the Act to file and prosecute such suits or take such proceedings as the Administrator General may deem appropriate for the recovery of any assets, bank deposits, money, movable or immovable of the estate of the deceased.

3. The circumstances, leading to filing of this petition, in brief, are as follows: The deceased K.S.Ramasamy died on 16.11.2010. The petitioner, in his capacity as a son of the deceased and as one of the persons interested in the assets of the deceased and also interested in due administration of the estate of the deceased, filed this petition. The assets left behind by the deceased are very large and of considerable value consisting of 1) Agricultural land, 2) Agricultural land cum house sites, 3) Houses, buildings, sheds, godown, 4) Cash 5) Bank deposits 6) Motor vehicles, car, tractors, agricultural machineries, diesel engines, electric pump sets and other numerous movables. All these assets are not only facing danger of misappropriation, deterioration and waste at the hands of the respondents 1 and 2, but they also continuously misappropriate the properties and allow it to get wasted. Assets worth more than Rs.20,00,000/- have already been forcibly taken by the first respondent and misappropriated for his personal purpose. The estate of a deceased person is a legal entity. After demise of K.S.Ramasamy, all his properties would not automatically become the properties of his legal heirs. It becomes a separate legal entity called “Estate of K.S.Ramasamy”. After partition of all the landed properties between the deceased and his two sons in 1970, the deceased was cultivating his share of 10 acres of land till 2009.Petitioner's parents were living in their ancestral house. After the first respondent's marriage, parents were driven out to cattle shed. Deceased father was admitted in GKNM Hospital, Coimbatore on 05.06.2009 and took treatment as in-patient for two months. During the absence of deceased, first respondent and his wife occupied the house of the deceased. First respondent and his wife intimated the deceased and the petitioner to settle the house in his favour. First respondent got the house settled in his favour on 05.10.2009. He made

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top