Madras High Court
CRP/6005/2026 of B.Suryakala Vs K.Uma on 6 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06-10-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 6005 of 2026
and
CMP No. 26061 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012022362026}
1.B.Suryakala
2. P.T. Balasubramaniyan
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. K.Uma
2.P. Gnanamuthu
3.Sridhar
4.Vadamalai
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to allow the Revision Petition set aside the order passed in IA No.3 of 2026 in OS No.211 of 2019 dated 08.08.2026 passed by the Subordinate Judge for LAOP Cases, Tiruvallur.
and
CMP No. 26063 of 2026,
CNR:{HCMA012016482026}
1. B.Suryakala
2.P.T.Balasubramaniyan
Petitoiners(s)
Vs
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 01:13:53 pm )
1. K.Uma
2.P.Gnanamuthu
3.Sridhar
4.Vasamalai
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order order dated 08.08.2026 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2026 in O.S.No.211 of 2019 by the Subordinate Judge for LAOP Cases, Tiruvallur.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.A.Prasanna Venkat
For Respondent(s):
Mr.B.Gandhi for R1
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.
COMMON ORDER
These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the fair and decreetal order passed in IA.No.s 2, 3 in OS.No.211 of 2019, dated 08.08.2026, on the file of Subordinate Judge for LAOP Cases, Tiruvallur, wherein the applications filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff for reopening the plaintiff side evidence and for examining the 1st defendant as a witness on the side of the plaintiff, came to be allowed by the Court below.
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 01:13:53 pm )
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent.
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 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in OS.No.211 of 2019, seeking for the relief of partition and for allotment of 1/4th share in the suit properties and for other consequential reliefs. The 1st defendant is the father of the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 are the brothers of the plaintiff. The 4th and 5th defendants are the purchasers of the property from the 1st and 2nd defendants through a registered sale deed dated 17.4.2006. The 3rd defendant is said to have stood as a witness to the said document. The plaintiff is questioning this sale deed on the ground that the 1st and 2nd defendants could not have conveyed the entire property in favour of the 4th and 5th defendants.
5. Defendants 1 to 3 did not contest the case and they were set ex-parte. The plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and yet another witness was examined as PW.2. The 5th defendant examined himself as DW.1.
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 01:13:53 pm )
6. The plaintiff filed IA.Nos 2 and 3 of 2026 to reopen the evidence on the side of the plaintiff and examine the 1st defendant as plaintiff side evidence. The Court below has allowed these applications on the ground that there is no bar to examine the opposite side as a witness and to substantiate the same, the Court below has relied upon many judgments. Aggrieved by the said order, these civil revision petitions have been filed by the 4th and 5th defendants in the suit.
7. The petitioners who are the 4th and 5th defendants have already taken a stand that there is a collusion between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 and therefore they are opposing the plaintiff from calling the 1st defendant as a witness on the side of the plaintiff.
8. In the considered view of this Court, the plaintiff is only claiming for 1/4th share in the suit property. If the plaintiff is able to substitute her right, the sale deed that was executed in favour of 4th and 5th defendants conveying the entire property will not bind the plaintiff insofar as the 1/4th share claimed by the plaintiff. Therefore, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to establish that she has 1/4th share in the suit property.
9. For reasons best known to defendants 1 to 3, they have chosen not to contest the suit. Considering the apprehension raised on the side of the petitioners, the examination of the 1st defendant may result in the defendants
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 01:13:53 pm )
attempting to come up with their case indirectly after having chosen not to contest this suit. It must be kept in mind that the suit has been filed seeking for the relief of partition. Therefore, even though the opposite party can be called as a witness, in the facts and circumstances of the present case and considering the stand taken by the petitioners/defendants 4 and 5, it will not be appropriate to undertake this process.
10. In any event, the sale deed executed in favour of 4th and 5th defendants will not stop the plaintiff from establishing her 1/4th right in the suit property Therefore, there is no need to call the 1st defendant as a witness for this purpose.
11. In the light of the above discussion, the order passed by the Court below suffers from perversity warranting the interference of this Court and the same is hereby set aside. At the risk of repetition, it is made clear that the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to prove her 1/4th share in the suit property and if the same is done, the sale deed executed in favour of 4th and 5th defendants conveying the entire property, will not bind the plaintiff insofar as 1/4th share claimed by the plaintiff.
12. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed in the above terms and there shall be a direction to theSubordinate Judge for LAOP Cases, Tiruvallur, to dispose of the suit in OS.No.211 of 2019, within a period of three
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 01:13:53 pm )
months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It is made clear that any observations made by the Court below while disposing of the applications or any observations made by this Court while disposing of these CRPs, will not have any bearing when the Court below decides the suit on merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 06-10-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No kp
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 01:13:53 pm )
To Subordinate Judge for LAOP Cases, Tiruvallur.
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 01:13:53 pm )
N.ANAND VENKATESH J. kp CRP No. 6005 of 2026 and CRP No. 6006 of
06-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 01:13:53 pm )