Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 16682
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI, J
Duraisamy – Appellant
Versus
Muthulakshmi (died) – Respondent
CRP. Nos.2622 and 2625 of 2025 | CMP. No.14839 & 14824 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Siddarth Sridhar for M/s.R.Bharath Kumar in both cases
For the Respondents: Mr.P.K.Rajagopal for R3 and R11 in CRP. No.2622 of 2025 and R8, R10 & R14 in CRP. No.2625 of 2025, M/s.E.K.Kumaresan for R4 in CRP. No.2622 of 2025 for R1 in CRP. No.2625 of 2025, M/s.G.Ethirajulu for R2 in CRP. No.2622 of 2025 and for R7 in CRP. No.2625 of 2025
Court upheld the interpretation of prior exclusion of property rights in partition cases impacting claims to remaining shares.
Headnote:The Court analyzed the context of partition and possession rights under a Civil Revision Petition concerning I.A. No.2 of 2023 and I.A. No.6 of 2024 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners challenged the final decree stage, pointing to prior exclusion of 35 cents of property. The Court noted this historical exclusion and clarified that the plaintiff's rights regarding the remaining properties needed acknowledgement, ruling that the plaintiff’s claim intertwined with the defendant's entitlement due to the sale of the previously excluded land. The judgment concluded with a dismissal of the revision petitions and mandated expedited proceedings from the Trial Court.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. defendants in the suit clarified. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. context of partition and applications filed. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. exclusion arguments raised. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. court's interpretation of prior judgments. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. final decree proceedings mandated. (Para 11 , 12) |
COMMON ORDER
The revision petitioners in both these revision petitions are the defendants
9 and 10 in O.S. No.189 of 1986 (CRP. No.2626 of 2025) and defendants 9, 10, 6 and 7, 14 to 17 in the suit (CRP. No.2622 of 2025).
2. I have heard Mr.Bharathkumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners in both these revision and Mr.P.K.Rajagopal, learned counsel for the respondents 8, 10 and 14 in CRP. Nos.2625 of 2025 and respondents 3 and 11 in CRP. No.2622 of 2025, Mr.Ethirajulu, learned counsel for R7 in CRP. No.2625 of 2025 and R2 in CRP. No.2622 of 2025 and Mr.E.K.Kumaresan, learned counsel for R4 in CRP. No.2622 of 2025 and R1 in CRP. No.2625 of 2025.
3. The suit in O.S. No.189 of 1986 was filed for partition and separate possession. Preliminary decree has been passed and at the final decree stage, the petitioners filed applications in I.A. No.2 of 2023, which is the subject matter of challenge in the CRP. Nos.2622 of 2025 and I.A. No.6 of 2024, which is under challenge in CRP. No.2625 of 2025. I.A. No.2 of 2023 was filed by the plaintiff and now represented by the legal representatives, viz., respondents 12 to 15. I.A. No.6 of 2024 was filed by the defendants 6, 7 and 14 to 17, the respondents
1 to 6 in CRP. No.2625 of 2025.
4. I.A. No.2 of 2023 has been filed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner along with Taluk Surveyor to measure and divide the suit property as per the Preliminary Decree and similarly, I.A. No.6 of 2024 was filed for appointment of Advocate Commissioner along with surveyor to divide the suit properties as per the preliminary decree and supplementary preliminary decree. The Trial Court in and by a common order appointed an Advocate Commissioner to visit the suit property and demarcate the same with the assistance of the Taluk Surveyor and to file a detailed report.
5. The grounds of challenge to the common order in these revision petitions are that this Hon’ble Court, while disposing of Second Appeal Nos.1236 and 1237 of 2009, had specifically excluded an extent of 35 cents sold to one P.Balakrishnan by the first defendant and his sons, from the entitlement of the plaintiff’s 1/18th share in Item 1. However, the plaintiff had included the entire extents in the final decree application filed in I.A. No.2 of 2023 and without taking note of the same, the Court has appointed the Commissioner to inspect all the properties and without accounting for exclusions made in the judgment in Second Appeals, by judgment and decree dated 16.07.2021.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Bharathkumar would contend that when this Court had specifically excluded the extent of 35 cents sold to one Balakrishnan, subject to the same being proved, it was not open to the first respondent/plaintiff or her legal heirs to claim entitlement of 1/18th share in the said extent of 35 cents by seeking allotment in the other properties. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, that is not the interpretation that should be given to the judgment of this Court.
7. Per contra, Mr.P.K.Rajagopal, learned counsel for the legal representatives of the plaintiff as well Mr.G.Ethirajulu, learned counsel for the 7th respondent would state that the judgment in the Second Appeals is very clear with regard to the exclusion of 35 cents of lands which was sold to Balakrishnan and that it was only to protect the interest of the innocent purchasers and not to deprive the plaintiff or her legal heir or for that matters, the other sharers from their respective entitlements in the suit property. The learned counsel for the respondents would therefore pray for the dismissal of these revision petitions and they seek a direction to the Trial Court to expedite the d
