Pappathi v. Thangasamy

ORDER Heard Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.A.V.Arun, learned counsel for the first respondent/caveator.

¶2The order of providing police protection and direction to break open the locks are challenged in this revision.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioners states that an application filed under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Executing Court, as against which, the petitioners approached this Court in CRP No.1797 of 2025. Pointing out to the various observations in the order, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that this Court was conscious of the fact that two first appeals were pending-one by the State and one by the petitioners and also this Court directed that without even prima-facing proving the Will to be genuine, the decree holders cannot claim to be legatees under the Will and proceed with execution. He would further state that the Executing Court, without giving an opportunity to the petitioners to contest the Will, which he rightly however concedes, was denied even in the order passed by this Court, has proceeded to allow the execution petition. He would however point out to the order impugned in the present revision petition, where absolutely no reasons are assigned for grant of police aid and break open. In this regard, he places strong reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kranti Associates Private Limited and another vs Masood Ahmed Khan and Others reported in 2010) 9 SCC 496 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given detailed guidelines for judicial as well as quasi-judicial authorities to follow, especially when it comes to passing of orders and assigning of reasons. He would also point out that this Court while disposing of CRP No.1797 of 2025 had clearly indicated that the first appeals will have to be expedited and now that, the condone delay applications have been allowed and applications to restore the first appeals are on the verge of being taken up and the order of this Court in CRP No.1797 of 2025 should be read in a meaningful manner and therefore, the execution proceedings should be stayed till the disposal of the first appeals.

¶4Per contra, Mr.A.V.Arun, learned counsel for the caveators states that even while dismissing the revision against the application filed under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, this Court recorded the lethargic attitude of the petitioners. He would further state that despite a direction given for the appeals to be decided within a period of three months from 10.07.2025, the petitioners have not taken any steps to expedite their applications to restore the appeal after condonation of delay. He would therefore state that when this Court had specifically directed proof of Will only for the limited purpose of Order XXII Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code and the said exercise has also been completed, the consequential order of police aid and break open cannot be called in question by the petitioners.

¶5I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel made on either side.

¶6The findings of the Executing Court pursuant to CRP No.1797 of 2025 regarding Order XXII Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code and proof of Will are not questioned before this Court in the present revision petition. The limited question that arises is as to whether the Executing Court is justified in passing of one line order allowing police aid and break open. In Kranti Associates Private Limited and another vs Masood Ahmed Khan and Others reported in 2010) 9 SCC 496, the Hon'ble Suprme Court, at Paragraph No.47 held as follows:

¶47 Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds: a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737). n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions". o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process".

¶7The impugned order clearly violates the mandate and the ratio laid down in Kranti Associates Private Limited and another vs Masood Ahmed Khan and Others reported in 2010) 9 SCC 496. Excepting for stating that "both sides are heard, Petition is allowed", no reasons are assigned as to why the respondents were entitled to an order of police aid and break open. For this limited purpose, I am setting aside the impugned order and the matter is remitted to executing Court for deciding E.A.No.31 of 2025 and disposing of the same with a speaking order, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶8With the above direction, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

27.07.2026 sr Index:yes/no Website:yes/no Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order To The Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruppur P.B.BALAJI.,J sr

27.07.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-07-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI and CMP No.19545 of 2026 1. Pappathi W/o.Manoharan, Rest.at No.481/3, Tiruppur Tk., and 14 Others 2. Vasanthamani W/o.Murugan, Rest.at No.481/3, Janasakthi 3. Kannammal W/o.Selvaraj, Rest.at No.481/3, Janasakthi 4. Maniyal W/o.Pattan, Rest.at No.481/3, Janasakthi 5. Pappammal W/o.Vaiyapuri, Rest.at No.481/3, 6. Rangammal W/o.Kumaran, Rest.at No.481/3, Janasakthi 7. Kuppal W/o.Palanisamy, Rest.at No.481/3, 8. Palaniyammal W/o.Subramaniam, Rest.at No.481/3, 9. Pappaal W/o.Rasan, Rest.at No.481/3, Janasakthi 10. Paappaal W/o.Rasan, Rest.at No.481/3, Janasakthi 11. Saraswathi W/o.Alagusundaram, Rest.at No.481/3, 12. Vellaiyammal W/o.Samuel, Rest.at No.481/3, Janasakthi 13. Ayyammal W/o.Munian, Rest.at No.481/3, Janasakthi 14. Arukkani w/o.Pattusamy, Rest.at No.481/3, 15. Kamalam W/o.Manoharan, Rest.at No.481/3, Petitioner(s) Vs 1. Thangasamy S/o.Ramasamy, No.38, 43rd Street, Thillai Gangar Nagar, Chennai. 2.Kannammal W/o.Subramaniam, Rest.at No.481/3, 3.Angammal W/o.Gopal, Rest.at No.481/3, Janasakthi 4.Kuppaathal W/o.Chinnasamy, Rest.at No.481/3, 5.Suriyakala W/o.Rajamani, Rest.at No.481/3, Janasakthi 6.Rangammal W/o.Krishnasamy, Rest.at No.481/3, 7.Lakshmi W/o.Krishnasamy Achari, Rest.at No.481/3, 8.Mani W/o.Thaniyarani, Rest.at No.481/3, 9.Lakshmi W/o.Thirumoorthy, Rest.at No.481/3, 10.Vasanthi W/o. Thangarasu, Rest.at No.481/3, 11.Angammal W/o.Murugesan, Rest.at No.481/3, 12.Rasayammal W/o.Ramasamy, Rest.at No.481/3, 13.Maliga W/o.Subramaniam, Rest.at No.481/3, 14.Rasammal W/o.Subramaniam, Rest.at No.481/3, 15.Deivathal W/o.Chinnakutty, Rest.at No.481/3, 16.Saroja W/o.Ayyappan, Rest.at No.481/3, 17.Muthulakshmi W/o.Rangasamy, Rest.at No.481/3, 18.Narachammal W/o.Subramaniam, Rest.at No.481/3, 19.Sarasal W/o.periyamaniyan, Rest.at No.481/3, 20.Sundarambal W/o.Muthusamy, Rest.at No.481/3, 21.Subbammal W/o.Nachimuthu, Rest.at No.481/3, 22.Lakshmiammal W/o.Duraisamy, Rest.at No.481/3, 23.Sivakami W/o.perumal, Rest.at No.481/3, Janasakthi 24.Kaliammal W/o.Ponnappan, Rest.at No.481/3, 25.Kalimuthu W/o.Subramaniam, Rest.at No.481/3, 26.Thulasiammal W/o.Santhanam, Rest.at No.481/3, 27.Valliammal W/o.Periyasamy, Rest.at No.481/3, 28.Visalakshi W/o.Natarajan, Rest.at No.481/3, Janasakthi 29.Sulochana W/o.Dhandapani, Rest.at No.481/3, 30.Shanthi W/o.Duraisamy, Rest.at No.481/3, 31.Eswari W/o.Sivasamy, Rest.at No.481/3, Janasakthi 32.Periyammal W/o.Rasiyappan, Rest.at No.481/3, 33.Krishnaveni W/o.Kandasamy, Rest.at No.481/3, 34.Pappammal W/o.Muthusamy, Rest.at No.481/3, 35.Nanthini W/o.Raghuraman, Rest.at No.481/3, 36.Maliga W/o.Govindhasamy, Rest.at No.481/3, 37.Ammaniammal W/o.Nachimuthu, Rest.at No.481/3, 38.Sarasu W/o.Nagaraj, Rest.at No.481/3, Janasakthi 39.Kannammal W/o.Rangasamy, Rest.at No.481/3, 40.Nachammal W/o.Antonimuthu, Rest.at No.481/3, 41.Vijaya W/o.Vellaisamy, Rest.at No.481/3, 42.Amutha W/o.Palraj, Rest.at No.481/3, Janasakthi 43.Indirani W/o.Ramasamy, Rest.at No.481/3, 44.Andal W/o.Govindharaj, Rest.at No.481/3, 45.Sivakami W/o.Rathinasamy, Rest.at No.481/3, 46.Thangam W/o.Thomas, Rest.at No.481/3, Janasakthi 47.Parvathi w/o..Duraisamy, Rest.at No.481/3, 48.Arukkani W/o.Ammaasai, Rest.at No.481/3, 49.Sampooram W/o.Semalai, 50.Rasammal W/o.Shanmugam, Rest.at No.481/3, 51.Valliyammal W/o.Ramadas, Rest.at No.481/3, Janasakthi 52.Mani W/o. Nagaraj, Rest.at No.481/3, Janasakthi 53.Pappammal W/o.Periyapattan, Rest.at No.481/3, 54.Thangamani W/o.Thangarasu, Rest.at No.481/3, 55.Jothilakshmi W/o.Mohan, Rest.at No.481/3, Janasakthi 56.Pappammal w/o.pattan, Rest.at No.481/3, Janasakthi 57.Saraswathi W/o.Rangasamy, Rest.at No.481/3, 58.Santhamani W/o.Ramasamy, Rest.at No.481/3, 59.Saroja W/o.Murugasamy, Rest.at No.481/3, 60.Rayammal W/o.Valuppooran, Rest.at No.481/3, 61.Ammaniyammal W/o.chinnaiyan, Rest.at No.481/3, 62.Eswari W/o.Veersamy, Rest.at No.481/3, 63.Kuppal W/o.Palani, Rest.at No.481/3, Janasakthi 64.Chinnal W/o.Pattan