Madras High Court
CRP/1920/2025 of BALASUBRAMANI Vs P.SHANMUGAVALLI on 13 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-10-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 1920 of 2025
CNR:{HCMA010805702025}
and
CMP No. 10976 of 2025
1. Balasubramani
S/o.Subramani @ Kesavan
P.Kadhirichettipatty,
Pagalpatty Village and Post,
Omalur Taluk, Salem District
2. Sivakumar
S/o.Subramani
Muthunaickenpatty Village and Post,
Omalur Taluk, Salem District
3. Madhu
S/o.Kolandai Gounder
Kadhirchettipatty,
Pagalpatty Village and Post,
Omalur Taluk, Salem District
4. Vanitha
W/o.Mathiyalagan
No.3/37 Amarathupillaiyar Koil Street,
Nilavarapatti, Salem - 636 201
5. Sumathi
W/o.Rajappan
No.561, 499 Masanaiyur,
Muthunaickenpatty, Omalur Taluk,
Salem District
6. Renuka
W/o.Madeshwaran
No.4/2, Plot No.8, Ekambaranathar
Naicker Street,
Near to Naveen Suba Mangala
Ramapuram, Ambattur,
Tiruvallur - 600 089
7. Shanthi
W/o.R.Sreenivasan
No.1/190, Gandhi Nagar, Naalikalpaty,
Salem - 636 201
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. P.Shanmugavalli
W/o.Periyasamy
Residing at P.Kathirchettipatty,
Pagalpatty Village and Post,
Omalur Taluk, Salem District
P.Ravichandran (died)
2.P.Soundaram
S/o.Periyasamy
Residing at P.Kathirchettipatty,
Pagalpatty Village and Post,
Omalur Taluk, Salem District
3. P.Santhanam
S/o.Periyasamy
Residing at P.Kathirchettipatty,
Pagalpatty Village and Post,
Omalur Taluk, Salem District
4. Indrani
W/o.Prakasam
Jalagandapuram Main Road,
Pappambadi Village, Omalur Taluk,
Salem District
5. K.Karunanidhi
S/o.Kandasamy
D.No.3/715, Arasamaram Kattoor B
Nattamangalam Post,
Salem - 636 010
6. M.Selvaraj
S/o V.Muthu
D.No.M/38 Tamilnadu Housing Board,
Kandampatti, Membalam Nagar,
Salem 636 005
7. M.S.Kandasamy
S/o.Sengoda Mudaliar
D.No.101/A, New Trichy Branch Road,
Annadanapatti, Salem 636 006
8. M.Arunvelkumar
S/o.Marimuthu
D.No.399/80-C, New Fairlands,
Salem - 636 016
9. R.Palanisamy
S/o.Ramasamy
D.No.41/A, Kolla patty, Mallasamudram,
Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District
10.L.Senthil Mohan
S/o.T.Loganathan
D.No.97, Cuddalore Main Road,
Ammapet, Salem - 636 003
11.The Sub Registrar
Office of the Sub Registrar,
Omalur Town and Taluk, Salem
12.The Tahsildar
Taluk Office, Omalur Town and Taluk,
Salem
13.Parthiban
S/o.Palanisamy
No.282 Raju Sal Committee 5th Road,
Opp. to Mariamman Temple,
Nehru Nagar, Maharashtra - 400 566
Respondent(s)
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 05.12.2024 made in
I.A.No.1of 2017 in O.S.No.245 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Omalur.
For Petitioner(s):
M/s.J.Prithivi
For Respondent(s):
Mr.V.Sekar for R1 to R3
Mrs.S.Yogalakshmi
Addl. Government Pleader for R11 & R12
R4, R5, R9, R13 – No appearance
R6 to R8, R10 – Notice Returned
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 has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order passed by the District Munsif, Omalur in I.A.No.1 of 2017 in O.S.No.245 of 2009 dated 05.12.2024, wherein the application filed by the respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs under Order 6, Rule 17 of C.P.C., to amend the plaint, came to be allowed.
2. Heard M/s.J.Prithivi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.V.Sekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mrs.S.Yogalakshmi, learned Addl. Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 11 & 12.
3. The respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.245 of 2009 seeking for the relief of permanent injunction. They also filed I.A.No.1 of 2017 under Order 6, Rule 17 of C.P.C., for amendment of plaint and sought for the relief of declaration to declare the sale deed dated 21.03.2007 as null and void, to declare the sale deed dated 19.07.2007 as null and void, to declare the sale deed dated 04.07.2008 as null and void, to declare the sale deed dated 28.07.2009 as null and void, to declare the sale deed dated 13.05.2010 as null and void, to declare the sale deed dated 26.07.2011 as null and void and to declare the sale deed dated 14.12.2011 as null and void. The necessary averments to justify those reliefs were also incorporated in the amendment application.
4. The application was resisted by the petitioners, who are the defendants, mainly on the ground that the relief sought for by virtue of the amendment is hopelessly barred by limitation.
5. The Court below has allowed the application by order dated 05.12.2024 and aggrieved by the same, the present CRP has been filed.
6. When the CRP came up for hearing on 08.10.2026, the following order came to be passed by this Court: “When the matter was taken up for hearing today, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submitted that already a common judgment has been passed in O.S.Nos.122/2007, 168/2007 and
415/2011 by the District Munsif, Omalur on 31.10.2025 and all these suits have been decreed and the concerned Court has also given a categoric finding that the sale deed dated 20.03.2007 is not valid and does not bind the plaintiffs. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that nothing will survive in this revision for further adjudication.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner seeks some time to take instructions in this case. Post this revision under the caption ‘for passing final orders’ on 13.10.2026.”
7. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, it was confirmed on the side of the petitioners that the suits filed in O.S.Nos.122 of 2007, 168 of 2007 and 415 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif, Omalur were decreed and as against the same, appeals have also been filed. The learned counsel further submitted that de hors the decree that has been passed in the three suits, the present CRP can be independently considered to see whether the amendment sought for by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation.
8. In the considered view of this Court, the basic document that has been put to challenge by virtue of the amendment, is the sale deed registered as Document No.1811 of 2007. This has given rise to all the subsequent sale deeds that were executed. This sale deed has been held to be bad in the other three suits by the trial Court. This is a very significant development that has taken place in this case. In view of the same, the amendment sought for by the respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs can be allowed and the order passed by the Court below need not be interfered with. However, it is made clear that the defendants have raised the issue of limitation regarding the reliefs sought for in the amendment application. This issue shall be independently dealt with by the Court below on its own merits and in accordance with law. This finding will sufficiently take care of the grievance expressed by the petitioners.
9. In the result, the order passed by the Court below is sustained and this CRP is disposed of in the above terms. Consequently, the connected CMP is closed. No costs. 13-10-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No ss To
1. The District Munsif Omalur
2. The Sub Registrar Office of the Sub Registrar Omalur Town and Taluk, Salem
3. The Tahsildar
Taluk Office, Omalur Town and Taluk Salem N.ANAND VENKATESH J. ss CRP No. 1920 of 2025 and CMP No. 10976 of
13-10-2026