The court emphasized that claims to property through female lineage do not support ancestral property claims under Hindu Law, alongside ruling against procedural abuses affecting justice.

ORDER :

Prayer: Petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking an order to withdraw the case in A.S.No. 18 of 2023 from the file of the Subordinate Court, Dindigul District and transfer the same to any other Court.

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India against the exparte order passed in O.S.No. 58 of 2010, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court No. I, Kodaikanal, dated 20.03.2023.

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 26.04.2022, passed in I.A.No. 134 of 2014, in O.S.No. 58 of 2010, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court No. 1, Kodaikanal.

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No. Unnumbered / 2023 in O.S.No. 58 of 2010, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court No. I, Kodaikalan, dated 23.03.2023.

Tr.C.M.P.(MD)No. 332 of 2023:

1. This petition has been filed seeking transfer of the first Appeal in A.S.No. 18 of 2023, pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Palani to any other Court.

C.R.P.(MD)No. 1285 of 2023:

2. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the exparte order dated 20.03.2023, passed in O.S.No. 58 of 2010, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court No. I, Kodaikanal.

C.R.P.(MD)No. 1345 of 2023:

3. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No. 134 of 2014 in O.S.No. 58 of 2010, dated 26.04.2022, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court No. I, Kodaikanal.

C.R.P.(MD)No. 1346 of 2023:

4. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 23.03.2023, rejecting the petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C.

5. This case is a classic example to show as to what extent the process of Court can be abused and misused by the plaintiffs at the initial stage in filing the untenable suit and by the 4th plaintiff at the final stage, in obtaining a decree, which is ex facie illegal.

6. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will hereinafter be referred as per their status/ranking before the trial Court.

7. The revision petitioner in C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1285 and 1345 of 2023 and the petitioner in Tr.C.M.P.(MD)No. 332 of 2023 is the first defendant and the revision petitioner in C.R.P.(MD)No. 1346 of 2023 is a third party to the suit in O.S.No. 58 of 2010, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kodaikanal.

8. It is not in dispute that the suit properties were originally owned by one E.F.Stanack, that he sold the suit properties on 11.03.1920 to Vijay Regunatha Duria Singam, that the said Vijay Regunatha Durai Singam had died leaving behind his two sons viz., Shanmugaraja and Subramaniaraja, that both of them have entered into a partition deed on 03.06.1985 and divided the properties equally and as per that partition deed, the suit property was allotted to the share of Shanmugaraja, that the said shanmugraja had died leaving behind his two sons viz., Karthikeya Venkatachalapathi Raja and Ramachandra Raja and a daughter Rajakumari Rajalakshmi and that the said Rajakumari Rajalakshmi along with other legal heirs have entered into a partition deed on 24.02.1975 wherein the suit property was allotted to the share of the said Rajakumari Rajalakshmi.

9. Admittedly, Rajakumari Rajalakshmi had died leaving behind her husband Reguraj – second plaintiff, two sons viz., Maheswaran – first plaintiff and Nagendiran and a daughter Rajalakshmi – third plaintiff and that her elder son viz., Nagendiran had died leaving behi