Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 470 (MAD)

Rani & Another v. Kalaimani

2009-02-09

G.RAJASURIA

body2009
Judgment : Inveighing the order dated 24.09.2007, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, in Transfer O.P.No.78 of 2007, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Despite printing the name, both parties have not appeared and no representation has been made on either side. 3. A resume of facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: In the Principal District Court, Cuddalore O.S.No.86 of 2007 was filed by the three plaintiffs as against the three defendants with the short cause title as under: "Between 1. Rani 2. Jayanthi 3. Kumudha ... PlaintiffsAnd 1. Kalaimani 2. Lalitha 3. Selvi ... Defendants" The relief sought in that suit would run thus: "1. that a preliminary decree be passed for partition and separate possession of plaintiffs 3/6 share in respect of the properties of item I, II and III, and allot the property item I (a) to the 1st plaintiff in which the thatched brick built house put up by the 1st plaintiff by her own cost; 2. that a Commissioner may be appointed for the purpose if division of the properties by metes and bounds as per preliminary decree; 3. that a final decree may be passed in terms of the preliminary decree; 4. that the defendants herein may be directed to pay the costs of the suit and 5. that all other just and necessary reliefs may be granted." As such, the said Suit is a Suit for partition. 4. Whereas, the Suit in O.S.No.22 of 2007 was filed by one plaintiff as against two defendants, specifying the short cause title as under: Tamil 5. As such, the defendants in O.S.No.22 of 2007 filed the TOP No.78 of 2007 before the Principal District Court, Cuddalore seeking transfer of the case O.S.No.22 of 2007 pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Parangipettai for being dealt together with the said O.S.No.86 of 2007 pending in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore. However, the learned Principal District Judge dismissed it. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision has been filed on various grounds. 6. However, the learned Principal District Judge dismissed it. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision has been filed on various grounds. 6. A bare perusal of the typed set of papers would unambiguously and unequivocally highlight and spotlight the fact that the suit O.S.No.86 of 2007 pending in the Court of the Principal District Judge is one for partition; however, the suit O.S.No.22 of 2007 pending in the District Munsif Court, Parangipettai was filed for injunction by the first defendant, Kalaimani in the suit O.S.No.86 of 2007 as against the first plaintiff in the same said O.S. 7. As such, it is crystal clear that in both the suits, the Will dated 30.01.1996 purported to have been executed by the father of the first respondent Rani and Kalaimani herein is in dispute. It is also clear that in the injunction suit, the suit property forms part of the suit property in the partition suit. Hence in such a case, the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore was wrong in his approach in dismissing the TOP No.78 of 2007 on the assumption as though the injunction suit is different from the partition suit and there is no nexus between the two. It is a common or garden principle of law that there should not be multiplicity of proceedings as well as emerging of divergent judgments from different Courts in cases between the same parties in respect of one and the same issue. Hence I am of the considered opinion that the order of the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore has to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside and O.S.No.22 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif, Parangipettai is ordered to be transferred for being dealt together with the suit O.S.No.86 of 2007 by the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.