A party must file for partition in disputes over joint family property, and the granting of interim relief is justified if it prevents irreparable harm.

ORDER :

1. C.R.P(MD)No.3325 of 2023 has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Manamadurai in C.M.A.No.3 of 2019, dated 07.11.2023.

2. C.R.P(MD)No.1866 of 2024 has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Manamadurai, in E.P.No.1 of2024 in O.S.No.311 of 1991, dated 30.04.2024.

3. C.R.P(MD)No.2075 of 2024 has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Manamadurai, in I.A.No.5 of 2023 in C.M.A.No.3 of 2019, dated 07.11.2023.

4. Heard Mr.J.John, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mrs.Vijayakumari Natarajan, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 in C.R.P(MD)No.1866 of 2024.

5. Originally, the suit property belonged to one Dr.Sundar Raju. After his demise, one Dr.Mallika Arjunaraj, had inherited the suit property. She had a son by name, Ramasamy Raju and a daughter by name, Ushadevi. One Ramakrishan was the tenant over the suit schedule property. Ramakrishnan had purchased the suit property from Ramasamy Raju vide registered sale deed, dated 03.03.1989. From that date, Ramakrishnan was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as a lawful owner and after his demise, his wife, Jeyalakshmi and his son, Senthil Kumar have inherited the suit property.

6. In the meanwhile, in respect of Door No. 149, Ramakrishnan Pillai had instituted a suit in O.S.No.138 of 1991 against Mallika Arjunaraju and his brothers before the District Munsif Court, Manamadurai, for declaration and permanent injunction. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 18.08.1995. Challenging the same, an appeal in A.S.No.160 of 1997 was filed before the Principal District Court, Sivagangai, in which, the judgment and decree in O.S.No.138 of 1991 was modified.

7. In respect of Door No.150, a suit in O.S.No.311 of 1991 was filed by Mallika Arjunaraju against Ramakrishnan before the District Munsif Court, Manamadurai, for declaration and permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree, dated 18.08.1995. Against which, an appeal in A.S.No.133 of 1996 was filed before the Principal District Court, Sivagangai, in which the judgment and decree in O.S.No.311 of 1991 was modified by holding that the property owned by joint family including Ramasamy Raju.

8. In respect of Door Nos.148 and 151, Mallika Arjunaraju filed two suits in O.S.No.49 of 1996 and 107 of 1998 were filed against Ramakrishnan and Ramasamy Raju for declaration and recovery of possession. The said suits were decreed vide judgment and decree, dated 17.11.2008. Challenging the same, appeals in A.S.Nos.24 and 25 of 1999 were filed, which were dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 24.08.1999. Challenging the same, Second Appeals were preferred before this Court in S.A.Nos.384 and 385 of 2000. This Court vide judgment, dated 13.02.2002, had partly allowed the Second Appeals with the following observations:

“20. With respect to the shop bearing Door No. 151, the appellant is not claiming any right as a tenant, but he is trying to safeguard his possession only on the basis of the purchase of moity interest from the said Ramasami Raju, the co-parcener. His possession is not in dispute as the plaintiff himself has filed the suit for possession against the appellant.

21. So, even with respect to the said property, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in 1984 (97) L.W. 334, the appropriate relief could be, a declaration that the possession of the appellant should be construed as joint possession by the plaintiff also, and separate possession could be taken by filing a suit for partition. On the basis of the reasonings given in