COMMON ORDER

These petitions have been filed to set aside the orders passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Uthagamandalam in IA.Nos.1207 and 1208 of

2016 respectively in OS.No.163 of 2014 dated 14.12.2016.

2. The Revision Petitioners are the plaintiffs in OS.No.163 of 2014 filed by the plaintiff/revision petitioner herein represented by his father/natural guardian viz., H.Thiyagaraj for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants.

3. The defendants also filed written statement denying the plaintiffs claims over the property. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed IA.Nos.1207 and 1208 of 2016 respectfully before the trial Court under Order 32 Rule 12(2) and Order 32 Rule 12(2) r/w Section 151 of CPC, to remove the guardianship and to declare the plaintiff as major and permit him to proceed with the case.

4. The said application was objected by the defendants by stating that even at the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiff attains majority, but, the suit was filed by the plaintiff representing by his father who is a law graduate. Therefore, the said application was returned by the trial court. Considering both the submissions, the trial Court held that though the plaintiff was attained majority at the time of filing of the petition, there is no necessity to file this application to declare him as major. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

5. Challenging the said findings, the revision petitioner/plaintiff approached this Court by stating that the learned Judge failed to appreciate the fact that as per the Will executed by his grand father, as a minor partner / plaintiff can entered into the business only after he attains the age of 21 years, till then he has to be represented by his guardian. Hence, his father filed a suit because for the reason that at the time of filing of the suit, he was aged about only 20 years, the said fact was not appreciated by the trial judge. Hence, he prayed to set aside the findings of the trial Court.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that knowing fully well that the plaintiff has attained majority, his father filed a suit by representing the plaintiff as if he is a minor, such the suit is not maintainable in law. But, on seeing the facts in Paragraph.No.7, the plaintiff relying the Will said to be executed by his grand father dated 01.07.2005, wherein, a guardian was appointed to represent the minor until he attains the age of 21 years. Therefore, based on the said Will, he is claiming right over the property, but the said Will is subject to proof.

7. Based on the averments in the Will, the suit was filed on behalf of the plaintiff by his father. It is only a technical error. Now, the plaintiff filed an application to declare him as major, but, the trial Court made an observation with regard to the fact that already , he was major at the time of filing the suit, therefore, there is no necessity to declare him as major. However, in the cause-title of the plaint, the plaintiff was represented by his guardian father and the same has to be removed.

8. Accordingly, the revision petitions are parly allowed with a direction to the Civil Court to remove the cause-title of the plaint, wherein the plaintiff was represented by his guardian father and permit him to contest the suit. The trial Court is directed to dispose the suit as expediously as possible.

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition if any, is closed.

26.09.2022 Vv T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

Vv

26.09.2022