C.R.P (PD) No.2248 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.04.2022

CORAM: JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

C.R.P (PD) No.2248 of 2019

and C.M.P. No.14597 of 2019

1.Vijayalakshmi

2.P.A.Thangavel

... Petitioners

Vs.

1.A.Mahalingam

2.G.Thilagavathy

3.G.Saranya

4.G.Deepika

... Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 20.06.2019 made in

I.A. No.547 of 2018 in O.S. No.535 of 2017 on the file of IV Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.

For Petitioner

:

Mrs.AL.Ganthimathi

For Respondents

:

Mr.R.Bharathkumar for R1

Mr.B.Ravi, for R2 to R4

Page 1 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P (PD) No.2248 of 2019

O R D E R

This revision is preferred by the plaintiffs in a partition suit in

O.S.No.535/2017, wherein they challenge the order passed by the trial court

dismissing plaintiffs' application for appointing a receiver in I.A. No.547 of

2018. The dispute pertains to the estate of late Angannan.

2. Heard the learned counsel for all the parties.

3. This court was informed there is a consensus and that the properties were

divided earlier among Angannan and his three sons under a registered partition

deed dated 11.02.1971, in which Angannan was allotted 'A' schedule in the

partition deed, his son Thangavel, the second plaintiff is allotted 'B' schedule in

the partition deed, the first defendant Mahalingam, another son of Angannan

was allotted 'C' schedule and 'D' schedule was allotted to his last son

Gunasekaran.

4. The second point in agreement between the parties is that in the 'A' schedule

property in the partition deed, which was allotted to late Angannan, a marriage

hall came to be constructed which goes by the name AKA Marriage Hall and

Page 2 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P (PD) No.2248 of 2019

that all the three sons of late Angannan, namely Thangavel, Mahalingam and

Gunasekaran have contributed their funds to its construction. It is alleged that

Gunasekaran was in management of this marriage hall until his demise in 2017

and thereafter, Mahalingam has taken over the management. Mahalingam, the

first defendant, however disputes this aspect of the allegation.

5. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs contends that inasmuch as the aforesaid

AKA Marriage Hall was constructed with the funds contributed by all the three

brothers, it is to be managed jointly by them or at least a receiver be appointed

for its management.

6. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the plaintiffs have

sought an appointment of a receiver for the 'C' schedule property in the plaint

which comprises not just AKA Marriage Hall but also another marriage hall,

namely Vijayalakshmi Kalyana Mandapam, which belongs exclusively to the

first defendant.

7. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs now clarifies that she limits her prayer

for appointment of a receiver only to AKA Marriage Hall. The suit is of the year

Page 3 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P (PD) No.2248 of 2019

2017 and it is ripe for trial. Having said that, given the context of the suit and

the nature of allegation made therein, it is imperative that AKA Marriage Hall is

properly managed for the benefit of the parties, therefore, this court constitutes

a three member committee as party receivers to manage all the affairs

connected with M/s.AKA Marriage Hall alone. The team of receivers will

comprise of the first defendant (Mahalingam), second plaintiff (Thangavel) and

G.Thilagavathy (second defendant and widow of Gunasekaran) as party

receivers. They shall assume office from today as receivers.

8. Since the litigation is pending for close to five years now, the trial court is

now required to expedite the trial of the case and try to dispose of the same,

preferably by December, 2022. All the receivers are directed to open separate

bank accounts