ORDER

This civil revision petition arises against an order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri, dismissing the application in I.A.No.7 of 2023 filed by the defendants for rejection of plaint in O.S.No.118 of 2014.

st

2. The civil revision petitioner is the 1 defendant to the suit.

3. The suit in O.S.No.118 of 2014 was presented before the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri, seeking the relief of partition and separate possession.

4. The suit was presented by the granddaughter of the civil revision petitioner. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The civil revision petitioner-Ganesan has one son and three daughters. His son G.Loganathan married the plaintiff’s mother – Divya and from the wedlock, the plaintiff was born. Apart from Loganathan, Ganesan has three other children, namely, Vanitha, Sangeetha and Sathyapriya. Pleading that the properties are joint family properties in which the granddaughter has a share, by virtue of amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the present suit came to be filed.

st

5. On summons being served, the 1 defendant entered appearance through his counsel and filed a written statement. He took out an application for rejection of pliant in I.A.No.7 of 2023. His plea was that the properties are self- acquired properties of his father-D.P.Periyasamy and therefore, it cannot be treated as ancestral properties. He would state that as long as he is alive, there is no cause of action for the suit, since succession will open only on his death. In other words, the plea of Ganesan is that they are not the joint family properties, but self-acquired properties of his father to which he succeeded by virtue of application of Hindu Succession Act. On the ground of lack of cause of action, he took out an application as aforesaid.

6. After receipt of the counter, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the application does not deserve acceptance and dismissed it by way of his order dated 11.03.2024. Hence, the revision.

7. Heard Ms.M.Adhishree for the civil revision petitioner.

st

8. Ms.Adhishree would contend that between the father of the 1 respondent and the other respondents, a suit had been presented in O.S.No.44 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri, and the learned Judge came to a conclusion that the properties are self-acquired st properties of Ganesan and therefore, this suit cannot be continued by the 1 respondent. Therefore, she would plead that the suit lacks cause of action and deserves rejection.

9. Whether a property is a joint family property or a self-acquired property is a matter that has to be gone into only after a detailed trial. The fact that the suit in O.S.No.44 of 2013 has been decreed can be a defence in the hands of the civil revision petitioner. It is all accepted fact that the present plaintiff is not a party to the said proceedings. When such being the circumstances, whether the judgement and decree passed by Additional District Judge in O.S.No.44 of 2013 would be binding on the plaintiff in the present case is a matter that has to be necessarily agitated before the court during the time of trial. To put it simply, whether the property is a joint family property of Ganesan, Loganathan and his other legal heirs and the plaintiff or whether they are the self-acquired properties of Periyasamy to which Ganesan had succeeded is a matter which requires evidence and proof. When a matter requires evidence and proof, the plaint cannot be rejected.

10. In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any merits in the revision and the order of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri, dated 11.03.2024 made in I.A.No.7 of 2023 in O.S.No.118 of

2014 stands confirmed.

In the result, the civil revision petition stands dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, connected CMP stands closed.

Index : yes / no 11..09..2024 Neutral Citation : yes / no Speaking / Non