Madras High Court
CRP/2617/2025 of S. AMUTHA Vs G. NITHYA on 7 October 2026
CRP No. 2617 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-10-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 2617 of 2025
and CMP No.14796 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011384732025}
1. S. Amutha
2. R.Malarvizhi
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. G. Nithya
2.G.Balakannan
3.D.Gunasekaran
V.Durairaj (died)
4.D.Sukumar
5.D.Ravichandran
Hamsa Bai (died).
6.Minor G.Shruthi
D/o.Gunasekaran, Minor Rep by their
Mother /Natural Guardian Lalitha, No.2
Bharathiyar Street, Krishna Nagar,
Vellore - 1.
7.Minor G.Janani
D/o.Gunasekaran, Minor Rep by their
Mother /Natural Guardian Lalitha, No.2
Bharathiyar Street, Krishna Nagar,
Vellore - 1.
Respondent(s)
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:12:03 pm )
CRP No. 2617 of 2025
PRAYER
Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair order and decree dated 22-04-2025 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore in IA.No.2 of 2025 in IA.No.1 of 2022 in OS.No.40
of 2005.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.K.V.,Babu
for Ms.R. Janaki
For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.Ezhilarasan
and
Mrs. M.P.Bharathi
for R1 and R2
Ms.Deepika for R4 & R5
for R3, R6, R7 -NRN
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 decreetal order passed in IA.No.2 of 2025 in IA.No.1 of 2022 in OS.No.40 of 2005, dated 22.04.2025, on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, wherein the application filed by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC, to implead themselves as respondents 8 and 9 came to be rejected by the Court below.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:12:03 pm )
CRP No. 2617 of 2025
3. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record. This Court also went through the order passed by the Court below.
4. The respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs who filed the suit in OS.No.40 of 2005, seeking for the relief of partition and for allotment of 1/6th share in the suit property. A preliminary decree came to be passed on 30.06.2010. Aggrieved by the same, defendants 3 and 5 and defendants 1, 6 and 7 filed AS.Nos.867 and 877 of 2010 before this Court and this Court by a judgment and decree dated 07.03.2022, dismissed the appeals and confirmed the preliminary decree passed by the trial Court. This judgment was further confirmed by the Apex Court by an order dated 17.04.2023.
5. In the meantime, IA.No.1 of 2022, was filed by the plaintiffs for passing final decree. When this application was pending, IA.No.2 of 2025 was filed by the petitioners herein under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, to implead themselves as respondents 8 and 9 in the final decree proceedings.
6. The above application was filed on the ground that the 5th defendant in the suit viz., late Hamsa Bai had executed two registered wills dated 02.09.2004 and bequeathed 1/2 share in the suit property in favour of the petitioners and the said Hamsa Bai died on 25.2.2022 and thereby the
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:12:03 pm )
CRP No. 2617 of 2025 petitioners became entitled to 1/2 share in the suit property. Apart from that, the petitioners have also filed OS.No.159 of 2023 against the plaintiffs. Seeking the relief for declaration of title, permanent injunction and to declare the decree passed in OS.No.40 of 2005 as null and void and not binding on the petitioners.
7. The Court below dismissed the application on the ground that the Trial Court has already held that the suit properties are ancestral properties held jointly by the family headed by Durairaj and Hamsa Bhai along with the 2nd defendant and the same was also confirmed in the appeal and therefore the petitioners cannot claim 1/2 share in the suit property and they are neither necessary nor proper parties in the final decree proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order, the present CRP has been filed before this Court.
8. The petitioners have filed OS.No.159 of 2023, challenging the decree passed in OS.No.40 of 2005 and it is pending on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore. The plaintiffs are denying the right of the petitioners and the learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that already an application has been filed seeking for rejection of plaint in OS.No.159 of 2023 and it is pending.
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:12:03 pm )
CRP No. 2617 of 2025
9. The petitioners herein are getting into the final decree proceedings based on the alleged Will said to have been executed by Hamsa Bai who was the 5th defendant in OS.No.40 of 2005. In the final decree proceedings, the Court cannot reopen the findings which has reached finality in the preliminary decree and the final decree proceedings confines itself only to the allotment of shares after division by metes and bounds. Since the petitioners are claiming their rights under Hamsa Bai by virtue of the Will, at the best they can be treated as proper parties in order to enable the Court below to effectively pass the final decree. By no stretch the petitioners will be permitted to agitate their independent rights in the final decree proceedings and that exercise can be done only in the suit that is pending in OS.No.159 of 2023. It will be appropriate if the petitioners are impleaded in the final decree proceedings so that the petitioners do not turn around in future and complain that they have questioned the preliminary decree and that final decree was passed behind their back when the suit was pending. To avoid this ground being taken by the petitioners, the petitioners can be made as respondents in the final decree proceedings.
10. The petitioners are relying upon a Will which is said to have been executed by Hamsa Bai in their favour. In view of the same, the petitioners will have to necessarily prove the Will in accordance with the Indian Evidence Act [BSA 2023]. Only on such proof of Will, the petitioners will be allowed to remain as the respondents in the final decree proceedings.
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:12:03 pm )
CRP No. 2617 of 2025
11. The above observations made by this Court will sufficiently take care of the interest of both the parties and it also clarifies the scope of enquiry by the Court below in the final decree proceedings. In view of the same, the fair and decreetal order passed in IA.No.2 of 2025 in IA.No.1 of 2022 in OS.No.40 of 2005, dated 22.04.2025, on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, is set aside and this CRP is allowed in the above terms. The learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, is directed to dispose of IA.No.1 of 2022 in OS.No.40 of 2005, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
12. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 07-10-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No kp
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:12:03 pm )
CRP No. 2617 of 2025 To I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore.
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:12:03 pm )
CRP No. 2617 of 2025 N.ANAND VENKATESH J. kp CRP No. 2617 of 2025
07-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:12:03 pm )