Madras High Court
CRP/5253/2025 of AMMULU (DECEASED) 1. P.K.Vijayan Vs K.Sumithredavi on 14 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP.No.5253 of 2025
CNR:{HCMA012124072022}
and
CMP.No.26450 of 2025
Ammulu (Deceased)
1. P.K.Vijayan
2. P.K.Ramakrishnan
3. K.Vijayalakshmi
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. K.Sumithredavi
2. K.Gowrishankar
3. Jaffar Mohamed Sait Memorial
Dispensary Trust, Represented by its Mutuvalli, Jaffer Mohamed Sait @ Saad Sait, M/a. 43 Years, S/o. H.Y.Hammed Sait, ‘SouthWick’
Coonoor Road, Udhagamandalam.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Judgement and Decree dated 18.07.2022 in
C.M.A.No.11 of 2016 on the file of District Judge of the Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam in reversing the Fair and Decreetal order dated 22.12.2015 in O.P.No.4 of 1999 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Udhagamandalam.
For Petitioners
: Mr.K.Venkatasubban
for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates
For R1 and R2
: Mr.Y.Kanishkar
For R3
: M/s.R.Sripriya
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the First Appellate Court in C.M.A.No.11 of 2016, dated 18.07.2022, allowing the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent herein.
2. The third respondent herein filed the original suit in O.S.No.138 of 1998 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Udhagamandalam, seeking ejectment of the petitioners and respondents 1 and 2. The petitioners and respondents 1 and 2 filed an application under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, seeking benefit of City Tenant Protection Act and offered to purchase suit property. The said main original petition was allowed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the 3rd respondent filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in C.M.A.No.11 of 2016. Along with the appeal, the 3rd respondent also filed an application in I.A.No.5 of 2021 to raise additional evidence to establish that the subject property belongs to the 3rd respondent.
3. The First Appellate Court by taking into consideration the additional evidence produced by the 3rd respondent came to the conclusion that the property belongs to Wakf Trust and hence, allowed the appeal on the ground that the original suit filed by the third respondent was not maintainable before the Civil Court. The appeal was allowed and the Trial Court was directed to return the original petition filed under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 and also the plaint in the main suit in O.S.No.130 of 1998 for presentation before the proper forum namely the Wakf Tribunal, Chennai. Aggrieved by the allowing of the appeal and the direction issued by the First Appellate Court, the petitioners have come before this Court.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the First Appellate Court without giving the petitioners an opportunity of cross examination of the plaintiff with regard to the additional evidence filed by them before the First Appellate Court, considered the said documents and came to the conclusion that the property belonged to Wakf Trust. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the failure to furnish the opportunity for cross examination, vitiates the finding of the First Appellate Court and therefore, the order passed by the First Appellate Court is liable to be set aside.
5. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court would indicate that the application for reception of additional evidence has not been allowed. The First Appellate Court simply perused the documents and has come to the conclusion that the 3rd respondent is a Wakf and hence, the suit itself was not maintainable. However, the operative portion of the order would indicate that the I.A.No.5 of 2021 filed by the 3rd respondent seeking reception of additional evidence has been returned.
6. In the judgment of the First Appellate Court, the additional documents have not been shown as marked documents in the annexure to the judgment. It is clear that the First Appellate Court without allowing the I.A.No.5 of 2021 simply returned it. Therefore, the documents filed along with I.A.No.5 of 2021 has not been shown in the annexure to the judgment. Without allowing I.A.No.5 of 2021, the First Appellate Court ought not to have considered the documents filed as additional documents. Therefore, the procedure followed by the First Appellate Court in considering the documents which have not been marked and giving finding with regard to the ownership of the subject property based on the additional documents which have not been marked cannot be sustained. Having returned I.A.No.5 of 2021, the First Appellate Court ought not have considered additional documents filed along with IA. The procedure followed by it is vitiated by material irregularity. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the First Appellate Court with a direction to consider the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent and also the petition to raise additional evidence afresh, after giving due opportunity to the rival parties.
7. Since the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent was of the year 2016, this Court is inclined to direct the District Court, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam, to consider the appeal and pass final orders, on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and records.
8. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 14-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dm To
1. The District Court, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam.
2. The Subordinate Court, Udhagamandalam.
S.SOUNTHAR J. dm CRP.No 5253 of 2025 and CMP.No.26450 of 2025 14-10-2026