Madras High Court
CRP/6316/2026 of Jeganathan Vs Kamalam on 6 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Civil Revision Petition No.6316 of 2026
& CMP.No.27235 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012290502026}
Jeganathan
S/o Kanthasamy Gounder,
Kattukottai, Thachur Post,
Kallakurichi Taluk & District
...Petitioner
Vs
1. Kamalam
W/o Subramaniyan,
No.1008, Kaalipattiyar Thottam,
Kudikadu, Kattukottai,
Ulaganathan Post,
Kallakurichi Taluk & District
2. Balu
S/o Subramaniyan,
No.1008, Kaalipattiyar Thottam,
Kudikadu, Kattukottai,
Ulaganathan Post,
Kallakurichi Taluk & District
( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 02:46:16 pm )
3. Sasikumar
S/o Subramaniyan,
No.1008, Kaalipattiyar Thottam,
Kudikadu, Kattukottai,
Ulaganathan Post,
Kallakurichi Taluk & District
4. The District Registrar
District Registrar Office,
Kusba Kallakurichi
Kallakurichi Taluk & District.
5. The Sub Registrar
Sub-Registrar Office,
Kusba Kallakurichi,
Kallkurichi Taluk & District
6. The District Collector
The Collectorate,
Kusba Kallakurichi,
Kallkurichi Taluk & District
...Respondents
PETITION under Article 227 of The Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and decretal orders dated 27.7.2026
passed in I.A.No.429 of 2025 in O.S.No.158 of 2025 on the file of the Additional District Court, Kallakurichi.
For Petitioner:
Mr.P.Jagadeesan
For Respondents:
Mrs.S.Yogalakshmi, AGP
for R4 to R6
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
( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 02:46:16 pm )
The Constitution of India against the order dated 27.7.2026 passed in I.A.No.429 of 2025 in O.S.No.158 of 2025 on the file of the Additional District Court, Kallakurichi (for short, the Court below) wherein the application filed by respondents 2 and 3 to implead themselves as plaintiffs 2 and 3 in the said suit came to be allowed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mrs.S. Yogalakshmi, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice for respondents 4 to 6.
3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner/first defendant and perused the materials available on record and more particularly the impugned order.
4. The first respondent/first plaintiff filed the said suit seeking for the relief of partition and for allotment of half share in the suit properties. Pending the said suit, the first respondent/first plaintiff executed a settlement deed dated 13.8.2025 in favour of her sons namely respondents 2 and 3 and on that ground, respondents 2 and
( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 02:46:16 pm )
3 sought to implead themselves as plaintiffs 2 and 3 in the said suit. This application came to be allowed by the impugned order. Aggrieved by that, the above revision has been filed before this Court.
5. The main ground that was urged on the side of the petitioner/first defendant is that the petitioner became the absolute owner of the suit properties by virtue of a will dated 15.4.1993, that therefore, even the first respondent/first plaintiff did not have any right to claim for partition, that in such view of the matter, during the pendency of the said suit, the first respondent/first plaintiff executed the settlement deed in favour of respondents 2 & 3/ plaintiffs 2 and 3 and that the same cannot be a ground for impleading them as parties in the said suit.
6. In the considered view of this Court, the so-called right of the first respondent/first plaintiff is said to have been settled in favour of her sons namely respondents 2 and3/plaintiffs 2 and 3. The petitioner/first defendant claims to be the absolute owner of the suit properties by virtue of a will. Just by impleading plaintiffs 2 and
( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 02:46:16 pm )
3 in the said suit, the defence taken by the petitioner/first defendant does not, in any way, water down. Ultimately, it is for the first respondent/first plaintiff and plaintiffs 2 and 3 to establish that they have a share in the suit properties. If the same is established, at the best, plaintiffs 2 and 3 will get what the first respondent/first plaintiff is entitled to. Considering the fact that the said suit is for partition, the Court below concluded that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner/first defendant if plaintiffs 2 and 3 were impleaded in the said suit.
7. Accordingly, the above civil revision petition is dismissed and the impugned order dated 27.7.2026 passed in I.A.No.429 of 2025 in O.S.No.158 of 2025 on the file of the Additional District Court, Kallakurichi is confirmed. It is made clear that such impleadment does not, in any way, take away the right of the petitioner/first defendant to raise all the defences before the Court below. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMP is also dismissed. 06-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 02:46:16 pm )
To The Additional District Court, Kallakurichi. RS
( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 02:46:16 pm )
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J RS CRP.No.6316 of 2026& CMP.No.27235 of 2026 06-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 02:46:16 pm )