Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2463 (MAD)

S. Subramanian v. C. L. Saradha

2013-07-15

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the court below in dismissing I.A.No.16425 of 2002 in O.S.No.2160 of 2002 dated 29.04.2003. The court below dismissed the said application, wherein, the petitioner herein has sought permission to get himself impleaded as a party-plaintiff in the above said suit in the place of the deceased-plaintiff. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. The suit in O.S.No.2160 of 2002 was originally filed by one G.Kamakshi seeking for permanent injunction against the respondent herein restraining her from alienating the suit property. The plaintiff claimed herself as wife of the deceased C.S.L.Narasimhan, the father of the defendant. 4. During the pendency of the suit, the sole plaintiff died and the suit was also dismissed as abated. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed the application in I.A.16425 of 2002 claiming himself to be legal heir of the deceased plaintiff. It is his case that the deceased plaintiff executed a Will bequeathing her 50% share of the suit property and therefore, he got interest over the said suit property and to be impleaded as plaintiff. 5. The said application was resisted by the respondent herein by filing a counter. The court below has rejected the said application by observing that the petitioner has not disclosed his relationship with the deceased plaintiff and has not filed any documents to prove his claim. It was also observed by the court below that the very claim of the original plaintiff itself was very much in doubt and consequently, the claim of the petitioner is still more doubtful. The petitioner admittedly has not filed the alleged W ill executed by the deceased plaintiff in his favour. Taking note of all these facts and circumstances, the court below has rejected the petition by holding that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the said application. 6. A perusal of the order of the court below would show that the petitioner, except by claiming that he has got an interest over 50% of the suit property in pursuant to the Will executed by the deceased plaintiff, has not proved such claim by marking any document or letting in other evidence before the court below. Certainly, the court cannot act based on mere pleadings especially when the same is denied and disputed by the other side. 7. Certainly, the court cannot act based on mere pleadings especially when the same is denied and disputed by the other side. 7. The petitioner having not filed any proof of document in support of his claim, the court below has rightly rejected the application, with which, I find no irregularity or illegality. Consequently, the present Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of any merits. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however submitted that the petitioner has got a right over the 50% of the suit property in pursuant to the Will executed by the deceased plaintiff. If that is his case, he has to establish his right before the competent court of law and without doing so, the present application filed is not maintainable. Accordingly, I find that the court below is just and proper. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is closed.