CRP(PD)(MD).No.1829 of 2019

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on : 02.08.2021

Pronounced on : 29.10.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

CRP(PD)(MD).No.1829 of 2019

and

CMP(MD)No.9443 of 2019

P.K.Abdul Khadar

: Petitioner/Petitioner/3^rd Party

Vs.

1.P.A.Jannath Ganni

2.P.A.Noorjahan (died)

: Respondents 1 & 2/Respondents 1 & 2/

Plaintiffs

3.P.S.Jamruth Begam

4.Hajiran Beevi

5.Ameer Beevi

6.Shahul Hameed

7.Nihara

8.Rajendran

: Respondents 3 to 8 /Respondents 3 to 8/

Defendants 1 to 6

(Memo dated 02.09.2021 is recorded as second respondent died and R1,

who is already on record represents the estate of the 2^nd respondent

vide Court order dated 02.09.2021 made in CRP(MD)No.1829 of 2019)

(R3 is recognized as power of attorney agent of the respondents 4 to

7 vide Court order dated 02.09.2021 made in CRP(MD)No.1829 of 2019 &

CRP(MD)No.6950 of 2021)

PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, against the impugned fair and decreetal order

passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam, dated

05.09.2019 in I.A.No.234 of 2016 in O.S.No.19 of 1996.

For Petitioner

: Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram, Senior Counsel,

for Mr. N.Dilip Kumar

For Respondents : Mr.M.Saravanan, for Caveator R1

and R3 to R7.

: Mr.P.Vinoth,

for Mr.N.E.Ashok Kumar for R8.

O R D E R

This Civil Revision is directed against the order passed in

I.A.No.234 of 2016 in O.S.No.19 of 1996, dated 05.09.2019 on the file

of the Additional Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam, dismissing the

petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

1/6

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

CRP(PD)(MD).No.1829 of 2019

2.The revision petitioner is a third party. The respondents 1

and 2\plaintiffs have filed the above suit for partition and

allotment of 1\2 share in the suit properties and for rendition of

accounts by the 6^th defendant for the income derived from the coconut

thope. After trial, preliminary decree was passed on 08.07.2003.

Aggrieved by the preliminary decree, the 6^th defendant has preferred

an appeal in A.S.No.336 of 2004 before this Court. Pending appeal,

the parties have entered into compromise and on the basis of the said

compromise, the decree passed by the trial Court was modified vide

judgment dated 21.01.2014. It is not in dispute that meanwhile, the

plaintiffs have filed a petition for passing of final decree in

I.A.No.2 of 2005 and the same is pending. Pending final decree

petition, the revision petitioner\third party has filed the petition

in I.A.No.234 of 2016 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, seeking orders to

implead him as 7^th defendant in the suit. The learned Subordinate

Judge, after enquiry, has passed the impugned order on 05.09.2019,

dismissing the said petition. Aggrieved by the said order of

dismissal, the third party has come forward with the present

revision.

3.Admittedly, the suit properties were owned by one Ameena

Beevi. The relationship not in dispute are that Ameena Beevi had

married one Abdul Karim and had a son by name Pasala kamal Batcha and

he married Davood Ammal and that the revision petitioner\third party

Abdul Khadar is the son of the said Pasala Kamal Batcha and Dawood

Ammal. After the death of the said Abdul Karim, Ameena Beevi had

married Abdul Karim's brother sheik Dawood and had three children by

name Jannath Gani, Noor Jahan (plaintiffs 1 and 2 ) and Sulthan

Batcha, that Sulthan Batcha died living behind his widow Jamrath

Begam\the first defendant and four children, the defendants 2 to 5.

4. The case of the revision petitioner\third party is that the

proposed party being the grand son of original owner Ameena Beevi, is

also entitled to get a share in the property of Ameena Beevi as he

was alive on the date of the death of the said Ameena Beevi, that the

proposed party i