CRP(PD).No.1745 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

[ORDERS RESERVED ON : 11.11.2020]

[ORDERS PRONOUNCED ON : 18.01.2021]

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

CRP (PD).No.1745 of 2020

and

C.M.P.No.10789 of 2020

Visaga Prabhu

... Petitioner

.. Vs ..

1. D.Malathi

2. R.Yasodhai Ramalingam

3. Rajamani

4. Kannappan

... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India,

praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order made in I.A.No.105 of

2020 in O.S.No.238 of 2016 dated 12.08.2020 on the file of the IIIrd

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur at Dharapuram.

For Petitioner

: Mr.C.Selvaraj

For Respondents

: Mr.S.Prasath

- - - - -

1/12

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

CRP(PD).No.1745 of 2020

O R D E R

The 14th defendant in the suit is the revision petitioner herein.

2. the Brief facts of this petition is as follows:-

(a) The first respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit seeking the

relief of partition of the suit property and claiming 1/2 share in the

schedule property.

(b) The first defendant is the mother of the deceased

K.R.Dinesh. While the 14th defendant is the elder brother of the said

Dinesh and also the first son of the father Ramalingam (now deceased).

(c) Written statement of the first defendant and 14th defendant

have filed and other defendants are being the tenants have been

exonerated by the orders of the trial Court in the Interlocutory

Application.

(d) After framing necessary issues, P.W.1 was examined and

documents were marked.

(e) At this juncture, the 14th defendant has filed

I.A.No.105/2020 under Order 7 Rule 11 read with 151of C.P.C for

rejection of the plaint.

2/12

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

CRP(PD).No.1745 of 2020

(f) The plaintiff/respondent filed counter in the said I.A, and

after enquiry, by an order dated 12.08.2020, the learned IIIrd Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur at Dharapuram has rejected the

application and hence, the present revision.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/14th defendant could

contend that duplicate copy of the plaint was not enclosed and the cause

of action was not properly pleaded and there is deficiency in payment of

Court Fee and suit claim is barred on legal principle. Since the suit

property is H.U.F property without consent of the another coparcenar, a

settlement has been executed by one of the co-owner in favour of the

other co-owner and hence the same is null and void.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff

has made submissions in support of the order passed by the trial Court

inter-alia contended that the points raised by the defendants are purely in

nature of facts regarding which evidence is necessary and further

submitted that the plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the said Dinesh

and his mother is the first defendant Yasodha Ramalingam and the

3/12

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

CRP(PD).No.1745 of 2020

petitioner/14th defendant being brother of deceased is not entitled any

share in the property. As the property stands in the name of her deceased

husband, on his death the wife and the mother alone are entitled to whose

property and the 14th defendant being the brother is not entitled any

share and he is not even a necessary part to this partition suit.

6. On perusal of the plaint averment, I find that the 1st

respondent/plaintiff claims to be the legally wedded wife of K.R.Dinesh

and their marriage took place on 03.06.2013 as per Hindu Religious

Caste Customs and they lived together husband and wife. The 1st

defendant is his mother. The suit properties are the absolute properties of

her husband K.R.Dinesh by virtue of under two registered Settlement

Deeds dated 28.03.2014 and 23.06.2014. He was in exclusive possession

and enjoyme