Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/2786/2026 of R. Pandi Vs M. Radhika on 14 October 2026
CRP(MD) No. 2786 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
CRP(MD) No. 2786 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011410622026}
and
CMP(MD)No.14292 of 2026
R. Pandi,
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. M. Radhika,
2. M. Jeyanthi,
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: J-36. Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India to set aside the Fair and Decretal order dated 27.09.2024 passed in I.A.No.l of 2022 in O.S.No.182 of 2021 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Melur, and allow the present Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner(s):
M/s P.Palani
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
This civil revision petition is filed against the order passed in IA.No.1 of 2022 in OS.No.182 of 2021 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Melur.
CRP(MD) No. 2786 of 2026
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff. The 1st respondent is the proposed party. The 2nd respondent is the defendant. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession. The 2nd respondent Jeyanthi is the wife of petitioner’s brother Mani.
3. According to the petitioner, the suit property originally belonged to one Rasu. The said Rasu died leaving behind the plaintiff, son Mani and daughter Pandiyammal. The said Pandiyammal died in the year 1985. Now the proposed 1st respondent who claims to be the daughter of late Pandiyammal filed a petition to implead herself as a party to the proceedings. The proposed parties claimed that the suit property is the ancestral property and also claimed that they have inherited the property from the mother of late.Rasu.
4. According to the proposed parties, by concealing the details of the legal heirs of the said the late Pandiyammal, the petitioner filed a suit for partition. The said Pandiyammal is the only sister of the plaintiff and that her legal heris are also entitled for a share, and therefore, she wanted to implead herself as a necessary party.
CRP(MD) No. 2786 of 2026
5. The defendant filed the counter by stating that the proposed party has not filed the legal heirship certificate and further stated that the share of the Pandiyammal has already been handed over during the lifetime of Rasu and the said Pandiyammal has not claimed any share during her life time and ouster from the suit property, she has no claim whatever and the children also has no right to claim partition and strongly objected the impleading of the 1st respondent. However, the trial Court without considering their averment in the counter and without any discussion passed a non-speaking order that in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation and conflicting judgments allowed the petition which is perverse and is liable to be set aside.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.
7. It is true that the trial Court has not discussed anything about the counter filed by the petitioner and the trial Court has also not discussed in detail as to how the proposed parties are entitled to be impleaded. However, because of the non-speaking order, the petition cannot be dismissed. Since the petitioner himself admitted that they are the legal heirs of Pandiyammal, who is the sister and according to the
CRP(MD) No. 2786 of 2026 petitioner, Pandiyammal’s share has already been handed over during the lifetime of Rasu, and she has also been provided with the jewels. All the above questions will be decided only at the time of trial, at present the Court cannot decide this issue. Since, the proposed respondent is admittedly the daughter of Pandiyammal, who is the daughter of late.Rasu, she is also entitled for share and to be impleaded as necessary party for proper adjudication. Hence, the order passed by the trial Court cannot be set aside on the ground that it is a non-speaking order. The civil revision petition lacks merits and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 14-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RM Copy to The Subordinate Court, Melur.
CRP(MD) No. 2786 of 2026 R.POORNIMA, J. RM CRP(MD) No. 2786 of 2026 14-10-2026