Court affirmed the necessity of having proper parties in legal proceedings and denied the petitioner's right to intervene owing to her lack of action for years regarding her claimed inheritance.

COMMON ORDER

Heard, Mr.T.Sezhian, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRP.No.1534 of 2024, Mr.S.Subbiah, learned senior counsel for the contesting respondent and Mr.R.Vivekanandan, learned counsel for the sole respondent in CRP.No.56 of 2025 and for the 2nd respondent in CRP.No.1534 of 2024.

2. The revision petitioner in CRP.No.1534 of 2024 is the unsuccessful applicant in I.A.No.3 of 2023, in and whereby she sought to implead herself in final decree proceedings in I.A.No.01 of 2019, which is filed pursuant to the preliminary decree in O.S.No.29 of 2013.

3. Mr.T.Sezhian, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRP.No.1534 of 2024 would submit that the petitioner being the sister of the plaintiff is entitled to share in the property that came to vest with the petitioner and the brothers, which was the subject matter of the preliminary decree in O.S.No.29 of 2013. He would take me through the plaint averments and also the affidavit filed in support of the application and would contend that the sister has a definite share in the property which is the subject matter of the partition suit. He, therefore states that the sister is a proper and necessary party to the final decree proceedings. He would also place reliance on the decision of this Court in suo motu revision in the case of Janaki Vs. Annapoorani reported in 1995-1-L.W.141, wherein, this Court exercising suo motu powers, without even any application passed orders, finding that there is fagrant violation of justice, which would result in miscarriage of justice, if not exercised. Therefore, the learned counsel would state that no prejudice would be caused to the 1st respondent / Chinnaraj, if the petitioner is impleaded in the final decree proceedings and allowed to participate and agitate her right.

4. On the contrary, Mr.S.Subbiah, learned senior counsel for the

1st respondent would state that the petitioner has been set up by the brother, who litigated up to this Court and proceedings attained finality in the preliminary decree proceedings in O.S.No.29 of 2013. He would also invite my attention to the Judgment of this Court in S.A.No.749 of 2021 dated 15.07.2022 where, the respondent, in the second appeal, has specifically taken a plea that the sisters are proper and necessary parties, one amongst whom is the present revision petitioner and this Court specifically rejected the said contention on the ground that sisters have not taken any steps to implead themselves in the suit which indicates that they are not interested in the suit property. Learned senior counsel would also state that the present suit for partition has been filed based on the registered Partition Deed of the year 1985 and therefore, without even challenging the said partition deed, it is not open to the petitioner to seek to be impleaded. He would state that the trial Court has passed a well considered order and the same does not warrant interference.

5. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would refute the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the 1^st respondent and state that he has no objection for the petitioner being impleaded.

6. Mr.S.Subbiah, learned senior counsel would place reliance on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and Ors. reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1 and would specifically lay emphasis on the concluding portions at paragraph no.137.4. The same is extracted hereunder for ready reference:

"137.4. The statutory fiction of partition created by the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act , 1956 as originally enacted did not bring about the actual partition or disruption of coparcenary. The fiction was only for the purpose of ascertaining share of deceased coparcener when he was survived by a female heir, of Class I