VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2023 › High Court of Madras

S.P.S.Murugesan v. A.T,Chinnadurai

DISMISSED
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
17 April 2023
Bench
C. Saravananauthor
Case no.
CRP(MD) 1012/2023

Judgment

ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners to set aside the Impugned fair and decreetal Order passed by the District Munsif Court-cum-Judicial Magistrate,Kodaikanal in I.A. No.68/2022 in O.S. No. 8/2021 dated 23.03.2023.

2.The petitioners are the plaintiffs before the District Munsif Court cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal, in O.S.No.8 of 2021. The suit was filed for a declaration. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased brother and his wife and their minor child aged about 10 years, who died brutally due to LPG gas on 29.12.2018 under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is submitted that the Trial Court has committed a grave error in allowing the application for impleading the private respondents herein namely, the respondents 1 to 5. Admittedly, the respondents 2 to 5 are the last legal heirs under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is submitted that the private respondents have also obtained death certificate and legal heir certificate for substantiating the vital facts. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kodaikonal also cancelled the legal heir certificate granted to the private respondents herein. Therefore, it is submitted that the Trial Court ought to have dismissed the application filed by the private respondents herein for impleading themselves as defendants in the above suit.

3.I have considered considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4.The relevant portion of the impugned judgment and decree reads as under:- 'jPh;t[ ,k;kDtpy; ehk; kpft[k; Kf;fpakhf jPh;khdpf;fg;gl ntz;oa gpur;rid ahbjdpy; ,we;J nghd fnzrdpd; thhpRjhuh;fs; 1 Kjy; 3 thjpfs; Mthh;fs; vd;gJ xg;g[f;bfhs;sg;gl;l rq;fjp. mnjnghy;>

,we;Jnghd

kQ;Rshnjtpapd;

kw;Wk; tp\;Zgphpahtpd; thhpRjhuh;fshf ,we;Jnghd kQ;Rshnjtpapd; je;ij kw;Wk; rnfhjuh;fs; 1 Kjy; 5 kDjhuh;fs;/3 Kjy; 7 gpujpthjpfs; thhpRjhuh;fshf nrh;f;f kDr;bra;Js;sdh;. ,k;kDtpy; 1 Kjy; 5 kDjhuh;fis 3 Kjy; 7 gpujpthjpfshf

nrh;g;gjpy;

vjph;kDjhuh;fs;/thjpfSf;F vt;tpj ,Hg;g[k; Vw;glg; nghtjpy;iy. Mf ,U jug;gpdiua[k; xd;W nrh;j;J tHf;F elj;jpdhy;jhd; tHf;fpd; Kotpy; jhd; thhpRjhuh;fs; ahh;? ahh;? Vd;gJ Fwpj;J tpil fhz Koa[k; vd;gjhy; jw;rkak; ePjpapd;ghy; kDjhuh;fs;/3 Kjy; 7 gpujpthjpfshf fl;rp nrh;f;f ,e;ePjpkd;wk; jPh;t[ fhz;fpwJ. ,Wjpahf>

1.,k;kD mDkjpf;fg;gLfpwJ.

2.kDtpy; nfhhpago kDjhuh;fs/3 Kjy; 7 gpujpthjpfshf fl;rp nrh;j;J tHf;Fiuia jpUj;jk; bra;J> jpUj;jg;gl;l gpuhJ jhf;fy; bra;a ,jd; K:yk; cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.

3.mtuth;fspd; bryt[j; bjhifia mtuth;fns Vw;Wf; bfhs;s cj;jutpLfpd;wJ.'

5.There is no determination as to whether the private respondents are indeed the legal representatives or the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased brother, brother's wife and child, who died on 29.12.2018. The application that has been merely allowed the private parties to implead as defendants. It does not mean that there is a final determination as to who are the legal representatives of the deceased persons.

6.In my view, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. Considering the suit is of the year 2021, there shall be a direction to the private respondents to file their written statement within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Trial Court thereafter frame issues and dispose the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 15 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7.With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

17.04.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes/No dss To

1.The District Munsif Court-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal.

2.The District Collector, District Collector Office, Dindigul.

3.The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.

4.The Record Keeper, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. C.SARAVANAN,J. dss

17.04.2023

Case details

Parties and counsel

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.04.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and CMP(MD)No.4754 of 2023 1.S.P.S.Murugesan 2.Pushpavalli 3.S.P.S.Palanivel ...Petitioners 1 to 3/Respondents 1 to 3/ Original Plaintiffs 1 to 3 Vs. 1.A.T. Chinnadurai 2.C.M.Murugesan 3.A.T.C.Subramani 4.C.Radhakrishnan 5.C.Manikandan ...Respondents 1 to 5/Respondents 1 to 5/ Petitioners 1 to 5/Proposed implead Defendants 3 to 7 6.The District Collector, District Collector Office, Dindigul. 7.The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District. ...Respondents 6 & 7/Respondents 6 & 7/ Respondents 4 & 5/Defendants 1 & 2 PRAYER:- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Impugned fair and decreetal Order passed in I.A. No.68 of 2022 in O.S. No. 8 of 2021 dated 23.03.2023 (On the file of District Munsif Court-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal. For petitioner : Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.