IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 24.02.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

C.R.P.Nos.359 and 360 of 2021 and

C.M.P.Nos.3069 and 3070 of 2021

V.Selvi

... Petitioner in C.R.P.No.359 of 2021

A.Venkatesan

... Petitioner in C.R.P.No.360 of 2021

Vs.

1. The Regional Transport Authority,

Virudhunagar.

2. M.Parameswaran

4. D.M.Maheswaran

... Respondents 1, 2 and 4 in

C.R.P.Nos.359 & 360 of 2021

3. K.Devi

..3rd respondent in C.R.P.No.359 of 2021

3. V.Kumaravel

..3rd respondent in C.R.P.No.360 of 2021

Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of

Constitution of India against the order dated 08.12.2020 made in

M.V.Nos.22 and 23 of 2016 on the file of State Transport

Appellate Tribunal, Chennai reversing the order dated 06.02.2016

made in proceedings in R.No.31111/A5/2015 and R.No.31112/A5/2015

respectively passed by the Regional Transport Authority,

Virudhunagar.

For Petitioners

: Mr.S.Mukunth

For Respondents

: Mr.S.Jaganathan

Government Advocate for R1

Mr.Radhagopalan

Senior Counsel for

Mr.Padmanaban for R2

C O M M O N O R D E R

Since the issues involved in both the Revision Petitions are

one and the same, they are taken up together and a common order

is being passed.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed

under Article 227 of Consitution of India against the order

dated 08.12.2020 made in M.V.Nos.22 and 23 of 2016 on the file

of State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai reversing the

order dated 06.02.2016 made in proceedings in R.No.31111/A5/2015

and R.No.31112/A5/2015 respectively passed by the Regional

Transport Authority, Virudhunagar.

3. For the sake of convenience, the ranks of the parties are

mentioned as per their ranks in the suit.

4. The plaintiff, who is the 2nd respondent has filed a suit

in O.S.no.12 of 2006 as against the legal heirs of the 1st

defendant, who had died. According to the plaintiff, he is the

son of 1st defendant and the 1st defendant maried the 6th

defendant in the year 1954. The 1st defendant, his borther,

Santhana thevar and Ganesan sold some of their ancestral

properties and started Velmurugan Tyres Rebutton - Retrading

Company works [hereinafter referred to as family business]. The

1st defendant and his two brothers partitioned their Hindu

undivided family movable properties by a deed daed 01.04.1973.

In the said deed, the 1st defendant was allotted B schedule

properties, in consequence, the 1st defendant and his brother

Santhana thevar and Ganesan with their mother Kaluvayee ammal

entered into another partition deed for the same joint family

business and the 1st defendant was allotted B schedule

properties and they are described as 2nd schedule properties in

the suit. Thereafter, the 1st defendant had developed illegal

intimacy with one Jeya, who was arrayed as 7th defendant and

defendants 2, 3 and 4 are their children. However, the plaintiff

was in good relationship with his father, 1st defendant. The

1st defendant, who was in the clutches of the said Jeya and her

children were acting against the interest of the Hindu Undivided

family and started transferring and effecting encumbrance of

schedule properties. The plaintiff, being the only legitimate

son born out of the wed lock between the defendants 1 and 6, has

filed a suit for partition of his half share.

5. In contrary, written statement was filed by the

defendants 1, 2 and 5. The 1st defendant had stated that he

married 6th defendant in the year 1958 and divorced her on

27.09.1961 before Panchayathdars, as per the caste custom

prevailing in Kallar Community. From the year 1961, there is no

relationship between the 1st and 6th defendant and the 6th

defendant was settled fully and finally, and she also married a

perso