CRP(PD).Nos.4325 and 4326 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 26.09.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

C.R.P.(PD)Nos.4325 and 4326 of 2017

Abishek @ Prahalad

... Petitioner

(in both C.R.P.Nos.4325 and 4326 of 2017)

Versus

1. Dinesh Babu

2. Parvathi Bhojan

3. Vimala Krishnamoorthy

4. Latha Velukumar

... Respondents

(in both C.R.P.Nos.4325 and 4326 of 2017)

COMMON PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated

14.12.2016 in IA.Nos.1207 and 1208 of 2016 respectively in OS.No.163 of

2014 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Uthagamandalam and allow the

revisions as prayed for.

For Petitioner

: M/s.AL.Ganthimathi

For Respondents

: Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar

for R1 and R3

: No Appearance for R2 and R4

1/5

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

CRP(PD).Nos.4325 and 4326 of 2017

COMMON ORDER

These petitions have been filed to set aside the orders passed by the

learned Subordinate Judge, Uthagamandalam in IA.Nos.1207 and 1208 of

2016 respectively in OS.No.163 of 2014 dated 14.12.2016.

2. The Revision Petitioners are the plaintiffs in OS.No.163 of 2014

filed by the plaintiff/revision petitioner herein represented by his

father/natural guardian viz., H.Thiyagaraj for the relief of permanent

injunction against the defendants.

3. The defendants also filed written statement denying the plaintiffs

claims over the property. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed IA.Nos.1207 and 1208

of 2016 respectfully before the trial Court under Order 32 Rule 12(2) and

Order 32 Rule 12(2) r/w Section 151 of CPC, to remove the guardianship

and to declare the plaintiff as major and permit him to proceed with the case.

4. The said application was objected by the defendants by stating that

even at the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiff attains majority, but, the suit

was filed by the plaintiff representing by his father who is a law graduate.

Therefore, the said application was returned by the trial court. Considering

both the submissions, the trial Court held that though the plaintiff was

attained majority at the time of filing of the petition, there is no necessity to

2/5

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

CRP(PD).Nos.4325 and 4326 of 2017

file this application to declare him as major. Accordingly, the petition was

dismissed.

5. Challenging the said findings, the revision petitioner/plaintiff

approached this Court by stating that the learned Judge failed to appreciate

the fact that as per the Will executed by his grand father,

as a minor partner / plaintiff can entered into the business only after he attains

the age of 21 years, till then he has to be represented by his guardian. Hence,

his father filed a suit because for the reason that at the time of filing of the

suit, he was aged about only 20 years, the said fact was not appreciated by

the trial judge. Hence, he prayed to set aside the findings of the trial Court.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that knowing

fully well that the plaintiff has attained majority, his father filed a suit by

representing the plaintiff as if he is a minor, such the suit is not maintainable

in law. But, on seeing the facts in Paragraph.No.7, the plaintiff relying the

Will said to be executed by his grand father dated 01.07.2005, wherein, a

guardian was appointed to represent the minor until he attains the age of 21

years. Therefore, based on the said Will, he is claiming right over the

property, but the said Will is subject to proof.

7. Based on the averments in the Will, the suit was filed on behalf of

3/5

https:/