C.R.P.Nos.649 and 1493 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 08.03.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

C.R.P.Nos.649 and 1493 of 2020

C.M.P.No.3350 of 2020

Shanthi

... Petitioner in CRP No.649 of 2020

R.Babu

... Petitioner in CRP No.1493 of 2020

Vs.

1. A.D.Rajagopal Naidu (Died)

2. R.Babu

3. Kanchana

4. Saraswathi

5. Sathiyabama

6. Dhanraj

... Respondents in CRP No.649 of 2020

[Respondents 3 to 6 brought on

record as Lrs of the deceased R1,

viz., A.D.Rajagopal Naidu vide

court order dated 07.12.2022

made in CMP No.21011 of 2022

in CRP No.649 of 2020 by

VBSJ]

1. A.D.Rajagopal Naidu (Died)

2. Shanthi

3. Kanchana

4. Saraswathi

5. Sathiyabama

6. Dhanraj

... Respondents in CRP No.1493 of 2020

1/11

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

C.R.P.Nos.649 and 1493 of 2020

[Respondents 3 to 6 brought on

record as Lrs of the deceased R1,

viz., A.D.Rajagopal Naidu, vide

court order dated 07.12.2022

made in CMP No.14136 of 2021

in CRP No.1493 of 2020 by

VBSJ]

Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 06.12.2019 in

I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.1216 of 2019 on the file of the learned XVIII

Additional City Civil Court, Chennai respectively

In CRP No.649 of 2020

For Petitioners

: Mr.M.Sriram

For Respondents

: Mr.K.Venkatesan

In CRP No.1493 of 2020

For Petitioners

: Mr.R.Siddharth

For Respondents

: Mr.N.V.Prakash

C O M M O N O R D E R

Since the issues involved in both the petitions are one and the same,

they are taken up together and a common order is being passed.

2/11

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

C.R.P.Nos.649 and 1493 of 2020

2. The present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed to set aside

the fair and decreetal order dated 06.12.2019 in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in

O.S.No.1216 of 2019 on the file of the learned XVIII Additional City Civil

Court, Chennai respectively.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioner in C.R.P.No.1493 of 2020 is the plaintiff and the

petitioner in C.R.P.No.649 of 2020 is the defendant in O.S.No.1216 of

2019. The said suit has been filed for partition by dividing the suit schedule

property into two equal shares by metes and bounds and allot one such

share to the plaintiff, deliver possession of the same and to appoint an

advocate commissioner to effect such division, if necessary and to direct

the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- Pending suit, I.A.No.1 of 2019

was filed by third party, viz., A.D.Rajagopal naidu/1^st respondent, who is

none other than the father of the plaintiff and defendant in O.S.No.1216 of

2019 to implead himself as 2^nd defendant in the suit. A counter has been

filed resisting the said claim by the plaintiff. The said petition was allowed

stating that in order to decide the issues in dispute pertaining to the present

suit, the said third party is a proper and necessary party. As against the

3/11

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

C.R.P.Nos.649 and 1493 of 2020

same, the plaintiff and the defendant in O.S.No.1216 of 2019 have come

up with the present Revisions. Since the 1^st respondent died, the other

legal heirs were brought on record as respondents 3 to 6 in both the

Revisions.

4. The learned counsels for the petitioners would submit that the trial

court failed to consider the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.289 of

2003 by the Subordinate Court, Ranipet at Vellore, which was later,

confirmed in A.S.No.7 of 2012 by the Principal District Judge, Vellore,

wherein it was clearly held that the 1^st respondent herein is not entitled to a

share in the present suit property and the same was confirmed by this

Court in S.A.No.736 of 2014.

5. The learned counsels for the petitioners also submit that the trial

court failed to look into the legal principle enunciated under Order I Rule 10

CPC, where only the necessary or proper parties have to be impleaded in