IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 14..10..2024 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN Civil Revision Petition No.4069 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.21179 of 2024

1.Mrs.K.Snegalatha

2.K.Parthiban 3.K.Chandran

4.C.Premnath ..... Petitioners -Versus-

1.K.Balaji

2.Ms.P.Punithavathi

3.Mrs.Bhavani

4.K.Neelagandan

5.Mrs.P.Padmavathi

6.Mrs.Jeevambal

7.K.Senthil Kumar ..... Respondents Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 30.01.2024 made in I.A.No.7 of 2022 in O.S.No.330 of 2020 passed by the learned XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kannan

ORDER

This civil revision petition arises against an order of the learned XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 30.01.2024 in I.A.No.7 of

2022 in O.S.No.330 of 2020.

2. The plaintiff is the civil revision petitioner. O.S.No.330 of 2020 had been presented for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property by the plaintiff. The plaintiffs are 5 in number. The nd rd plaintiffs 1 and 4 are the brothers. The 2 plaintiff and the 3 plaintiff are the st daughter and son of the 1 plaintiff.

3. On service of summons, the defendants filed their written statement and also presented a counter-claim. In the counter claim, the defendants sought for the relief to set aside the deeds executed by between the following persons:

(i) release deed executed by K.Shanmugasundaram and Mrs.T.Sankari in favour of the plaintiffs 1 and 4 in respect of the suit schedule mentioned property;

(ii) release deed executed by Mrs.M.Susila in favour of the plaintiff 1 and

4 and sale deed executed by one Kalayanasundaram in favour of the plaintiffs 1 and 4 in respect of suit schedule mentioned property;

(iii) release deed executed by K.V.Kalyanasundaram in favour of the plaintiffs 1 and 4;

(iv) partition deed executed between the plaintiffs 1 and 4 in respect of the suit schedule mentioned property;

st (v) settlement deed executed by the 1 plaintiff in favour of the defendants 2 and 3; and th th (vi) settlement deed executed by the 4 plaintiff in favour of the 5 plaintiff in respect of the suit scheduled mentioned property; and not binding on the defendants 2 and 3.

st

4. Pending suit, the 1 plaintiff passed away on 19.05.2021. The civil revision petitioners, who are the plaintiffs, pleaded that, as plaintiffs 2 and 3 are already on record, no other legal representatives need to be brought on record in the suit. However, defendants 2 and 3 took out an application to bring on record st the wife and the son of the deceased 1 plaintiff. The learned Judge allowed the application. Hence, the present revision.

5. Mr.V.Kannan for the civil revision petitioner. I have gone through the records.

6. The facts narrated above shows that the plaintiff seeks only a decree and judgement for a permanent injunction, but there is a counter claim seeking declaration and consequential reliefs against plaintiffs 1 and 4. The relationship th th st between the 6 and 7 respondents to the revision with the deceased 1 th plaintiff – K.Kittu is not in dispute. The 6 respondent is the wife of K.Kittu th and the mother of the civil revision petitioners 1 and 2. Similarly, the 7 respondent – K.Senthil Kumar, is a sibling of civil revision petitioners 1 and 2.

7. By virtue of sub-section (11) of Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, any person who is intermiddling with the property is also a legal representative. The present case, is way better than such a situation.

8. All legal heirs are legal representatives, but the contrary need not be true. When the defendants seek a counter claim, it is necessary that all persons st who represent the estate of the deceased 1 plaintiff in the counter claim are brought on record. The plaintiffs/civil revision petitioners did not take any steps st to bring on record the wife and son of the deceased 1 plaintiff. In case the