Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 65131
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. Kumresh Babu, J
Thiruppathy Venkatachalam, Kariyamal – Appellant
Versus
Venkat Ramanujam (Died), V.Seethalakshmi, Vennila, Mahalakshmi – Respondent
CRP(MD). No.3050 of 2024 | CMP(MD)No.17357 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. T.Antony Arulraj
For the Respondents: Mr.K.Jeyamohan
Transposition as appellants is permissible for interested parties, not solely legal heirs.
Headnote:The Civil Revision Petition concerns the transposition of petitioners as appellants in an appeal following the death of the original appellant. The court noted that the petitioners, while not legal heirs, have an interest in the estate and thus should be allowed to defend the appeal. The impugned order was set aside, allowing their transposition and extending the time for disposal. The ruling reinforces that transposition cannot be limited to legal heirs alone.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the civil revision petition and background. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding transposition. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's observations on legal standing and implications. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. final ruling regarding the transposition. (Para 6) |
| 5. conclusion and closure of the petition. (Para 7) |
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to call for records relating to the fair and decreetal order dated 15.10.2024 made in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in A.S.No.1 of 2019 on the file of the learned Subordinate Court, Kovilpatti and set aside the same and allow this Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr. T.Antony Arulraj, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr.K.Jeyamohan for R1 and R2 No appearance for R3
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed to call for records relating to the fair and decreetal order dated 15.10.2024 made in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in A.S.No.1 of 2019 on the file of the learned Subordinate Court, Kovilpatti and set aside the same and allow this Civil Revision Petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents 1 and 2 herein had filed a suit against the petitioner and one Venkata Ramanujam who is the brother of the petitioner and husband of the first respondent. A matrimonial dispute has arisen between his brother and the first respondent and hence the first respondent along with the second respondent who is a minor daughter, had filed a suit for the relief of partition claiming 1/12 share in the suit properties. In the said suit, they have been set ex parte and a decree had came to be passed.
Against which their brother had filed an appeal suit in A.S.No.1 of 2019 and the petitioners had also filed a cross appeal. During the pendency of the proceedings, their brother who was the appellant in A.S.No.1 of 2019 had died. The share in the property belonged to the said brother had been released in favour of the petitioners and therefore they had sought to file an application to transpose themselves as appellants in the appeal suit filed by the deceased brother. However, the Court below without considering their right had held that they being not the legal heirs are not entitled for transposition as appellants in the suit filed by their brother. He would submit that the suit is dismissed as abated, the petitioner would also lose their right to effectively contest their cross appeal filed in the suit, as the deceased appellant therein had released the property in their favour. Therefore, he seeks indulgence of the order.
3. Mr.K.Jeyamohan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 on the other hand would contend that the respondents not being the legal heirs of the deceased appellant, are not entitled to claim to transpose themselves as appellant in the suit. He would further submit that the transposition of defendants to the appellant arises only under Order 23 Rule 1(a) of CPC and therefore, the petitioner cannot be transposed as appellants in the appeal. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the petition.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
5. Admittedly, the appellant in A.S.No.1 of 2019 had died pending the appeal suit. The petitioners who are the brothers of the deceased appellant had also filed a Cross Appeal. It is their claim that the deceased appellant had released the suit property in favour of them and therefore to protect their interest with regard to the estate of the deceased appellant, they were entitled to be transposed as appellants. The Court below by applying the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1(a) of CPC had held that they not being the legal heirs of the deceased appellants were not entitled to be transposed as appellants. It is to be noted that Order 23 Rule 1 (a) of CPC does not envisage a transposition of only the legal heirs. The said provision envisages that when the plaintiff withdraws as abandoned the suit, then a defendant can apply to
