SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 3936

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice R.SAKTHIVEL
S. RAVEENDRAN – Appellant
Versus
C.S ELANGO – Respondent



2026:MHC:329 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS ORDER RESERVED ON : 09 / 12 / 2025 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 28 / 01 / 2026 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL C.R.P.NO.3124 OF 2017 AND C.M.P.NO.14600 OF 2017 S.Raveendran ... Petitioner/Petitioner/

Plaintiff Versus

1.C.S.Elango

2.S.Sethupathy

3.S.Jothikrishnan

4.Devi ...Respondents 1 to 4/

Respondents 1 to 4/

Defendants

5.Sampoornam

6.C.Shanmugam 7.V.Saminathan 8.C.Muthusamy

9.Indirani

10.Samiappan

11.Matheswaran

12.Nallasivam 13.Ramasamy

14.Arayee

15.Ravi

16.Chinnaponnu

17.Poongothai

18.Sandakumar

19.Saravanan 20.Kalaiarasi 21.Periasamy

22.Easwari

23.Raju

24.Thangavel

25.Karuppannan

26.Thulasimani 27.Ramalingam

28.Ambika

29.Jothimani

30.Sengottaiyan

31.Raju 32.Ravi

33.Gunasekaran

34.Sivasakthi

35.Malliga

36.Palanisamy 37.Subramani

38.Lakshmi

39.Chenniappan

40.Palanisamy

41.Indira

42.Poongodi

43.Duraisamy

44.Kannammal

45.Thambikalaiyan

46.Umapthi

47.Kaliannan 48.Annamalai 49.Kandiyayee 50.Dhanasekar

51.Prakash ...Respondents 5 to 51/

Respondents 5 to 51/

Proposed Parties PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, 1950, praying to set aside the Fair and Final Order dated September 30, 2016 made in I.A.No.570 of 2014 in O.S.No.176 of

2013 on the file of I Additional District Court, Erode.

For Petitioner : Ms.D.Sathya for Ms.Zeenath Begum For Respondents-

1 to 3 : Mr.K.Arunraj - No appearance For Respondents-

5, 34, 40, 41, 45 & 51 : Served – No appearance For Respondents- 10 to 14, 16 to 25, 29 to 33, 36, 38, 43, 44 & 48 to 50 : Mr.S.Sankar For Respondents-

4, 6 to 9, 15, 26 to 29, 35, 37, 39, 42, 46 & 47 : Dismissed vide Order of this Court dated February 10, 2023

O R D E R

Feeling aggrieved by the Dismissal Order passed in a petition filed by the Plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ('CPC' for short) in I.A.No.570 of 2014 in O.S.No.176 of 2013 on the file of 'the I Additional District Judge, Erode' [hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court'], the Petitioner/Plaintiff therein has preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

2. The Revision Petitioner herein is the Plaintiff and the Respondents 1 to 4 herein are the Defendants in the Suit in O.S.No.176 of 2013 and the Respondents 5 to 51 are the proposed Defendants 5 to 51 in the aforesaid Suit. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

3. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Suit Properties were acquired by N.Songappan vide a Partition Deed dated May 03, 1974 as ancestral properties. The aforesaid N.Songappan passed away leaving behind his wife, namely, Pavathal and four sons, namely, C.S.Elango (Defendant-1), S.Raveendran (Plaintiff), S.Sethupathy (Defendant-2), S.Jothikrishnan (Defendant-3) and one daughter namely, Devi (Defendant-4).

3.1. Further case of the Plaintiff is that 30 years prior to the Suit, the

4th Defendant orally relinquished her share in favour of her brothers, namely, the Plaintiff and the Defendants 1 to 3 and as such the Plaintiffs and the Defendants 1 to 3 alone are enjoying the suit properties in common. There was a misunderstanding between the Plaintiff and the Defendants 1 to 3 enjoying the properties in common and hence, the Plaintiff filed a Suit seeking partition of the Suit Properties and a permanent injunction against the Defendants 1 to 3.

4. The 1st Defendant filed written statement in the month of November 2013, which was adopted by 2nd and 3rd Defendants. The case of the 1st Defendant is that after the demise of N.Songappan on December 09, 1992, the Plaintiff and the Defendants 1 to 3 and their mother - Pavathal arrived at a Family Settlement and the same was reduced into writing. In the said Family Arrangement, 'A' Schedule property therein was allotted to Pavathal, the mother of the Plaintiff and Defendants; 'B' Schedule property therein was allotted to the 1st Defendant; 'C' Schedule property therein was allotted to the Plaintiff; 'D' Schedule property

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top