Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 943 (MAD)

M. Balasubramanian v. Sundarambal

2025-02-13

P.T.ASHA

body2025
ORDER : 1. This civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.12 of 2019 in O.S.No.1609 of 2015, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Coimbatore. The above IA has been filed by the 1 st respondent herein seeking to implead herself as a party to the proceedings in O.S.No.1609 of 2015. 2. Without traversing into the merits of the case, it is seen that O.S.No.1609 of 2015 has been filed by respondents 2 to 11 herein, for a partition of their 10/44 th share in the property and for a permanent injunction. In the said suit, the plaintiffs have pleaded an oral family arrangement dated 22.11.1981. The 1 st respondent inturn had filed a suit in O.S.No.788 of 2020, on the file of the District Court, Coimbatore, for a partition of the very same property and allot a 1/9 th share to her. 3. The 1 st respondent claims a right to the property on the basis that she is the sister of one Padmanaban. The said Padmanaban died intestate and issue less and the property devolved on his siblings. The1 st respondent submits that some of the legal heirs are no more. 4. The 1 st respondent who is one of the legal heirs of the deceased Padmanaban would submit that the Family Arrangement Deed is a fraudulently created document. Therefore, she is a necessary and proper party in the suit O.S.No.1609 of 2015 to prove the same. 5. The learned Trial Judge by his order dated 03.01.2020 allowed the petition as prayed for. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed. 6. Heard the learned counsels on the either side and perused the records. 7. The order of the learned Principal Sub Court, Coimbatore in allowing I.A.No.12 of 2019 and consequently impleading the 1 st respondent does not suffer from infirmity and the order clearly prevents multiplicity of proceedings. Unless the 1 st respondent is impleaded as a party in the suit O.S.No.1609 of 2015, she will not be in a position to question the family arrangement. 8. Therefore, the order impugned is in order and consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 9. Unless the 1 st respondent is impleaded as a party in the suit O.S.No.1609 of 2015, she will not be in a position to question the family arrangement. 8. Therefore, the order impugned is in order and consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 9. Since the subject matter in O.S.No.1609 of 2015 and O.S.No.788 of 2020 are one and the same and as the suit in OS.No.788 of 2020 is pending on the file of the District Court, Coimbatore, the suit in O.S.No.1609 of 2015 now pending on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Coimbatore, shall be withdrawn and transferred to the file of the District Court, Coimbatore to be tried along with O.S.No.788 of 2020.