CRP/959/2026 of Nirmala Vs V.Krishnakumar on 25 September 2026

ORDER

Heard Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Ramya, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the respondents are transferees from the first defendant in the suit. He would however state that though the first defendant’s half share was decided in the suit and also confirmed by this Court in A.S.No.525/2016, no decree was passed declaring the half share of the vendor of the first respondent. It is therefore the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the final decree application, without following the mandate of Order XXI Rule 16 of Civil Procedure Code or even a decree being passed in favour of the first respondent was clearly not maintainable and the order passed by the trial Court, appointing a Commissioner as if a half share has been decreed in favour of the first respondent is fallacious and unsustainable. He would rely on the provisions of Order XXI Rule 16 of Civil Procedure Code in this regard and also point out to the decree passed in O.S.No.64 of 2011 dated 28.04.2016. It is also his specific contention that after the dismissal of A.S.No.525 of 2016, there is no fresh decree that has been granted, modifying the decree in O.S.No.64 of 2011.

3. Per contra, Mrs.Ramya, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would invite my attention to Section 146 of Civil Procedure Code which is an exception to Order XXI Rule 16 of Civil Procedure Code where no separate application is required to be taken out by a person who steps into the shoes of a decree holder, to continue the proceedings by filing appropriate execution petitions. She would further state that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner since admittedly the first respondent is only claiming the other half share, which was the definite share, though undivided, of the first respondent. The learned counsel would therefore state that the party should not be driven to another painful round of litigation for merely declaration of share of the parties when this Court in A.S.No.525 of 2016 has specifically observed as follows: “Even though, it was not a suit filed for partition of the suit property, in order to render complete justice, it is well open to the trial Court to mould the relief prayed for in the suit and to pass appropriate decree in favour of the litigant. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the trial Court is legally right in moulding the relief sought for by the plaintiff and granting a decree, allotting one half share in favour of the plaintiff and her sister and another half share in favour of the first defendant.”

4. Unfortunately, this Court did not notice that the trial Court did not grant a decree declaring the half share of the first defendant. I see force in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. At the same time, considering that the shares of the parties is not disputed, the parties should not be driven to multiply proceedings and protract the litigation further.

5. Admittedly the half share of the plaintiff in the suit has been decreed and the property is now undivided. The other undivided half share has been purchased by the first respondent from the first defendant who contested the suit upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

6. In the light of the above, I am inclined to give liberty to the respondents 1 to 3 to take out an application for passing of a preliminary decree, declaring their half share in the suit property and thereupon take out necessary final decree application.

7. Any such application ,if filed, shall be disposed within a period of four weeks.

8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 25.09.2026 Index:yes/no Website:yes/no Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order sr To I Additional District Court, Coimbatore

P.B.BALAJI.,J sr CRP No. 959 of 2026 25.09.2026