CRP/1280/2026 of A. Krishnaveni Vs Shanmugapriya on 10 September 2026

ORDER

Heard Mr.S.V.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.B.Jawahar, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The respondent herein filed a suit for partition against her father and also the revision petitioner, who is the purchaser of the entire suit property from her father. Both the petitioner and the respondent’s father were arrayed as defendants in the suit for partition. The revision petitioner did not contest the suit, however, her vendor viz., the father of the respondent/plaintiff contested the suit stating that the suit was self acquired property and not ancestral property. In fact, the trial Court did not accept the said defence raised by the respondent’s father and granted a preliminary decree in favour of the respondent/plaintiff declaring her 1/2 share in the suit property.

3. It is thereafter, the petitioner has approached the trial Court seeking to condone delay and set aside the exparte preliminary decree insofar as the revision petitioner is concerned.

4. As rightly contended by Mr.B.Jawahar, when the suit has been contested by the vendor of the revision petitioner and by filing written statement and also entering the witness box, the purchaser from the defendant cannot get any better right or interest that his vendor and at best, he can step into the shoes of the father of the respondent/plaintiff and not claim any independent right.

5. The trial Court has now given a finding that the property is ancestral property and therefore, the daughter/respondent/plaintiff is also entitled to half share in the suit property. If aggrieved by the said preliminary decree, it is always open to the revision petitioner to challenge the same by way of statutory first appeal. However, it cannot be done in a manner that has been attempted to, by seeking to set aside the exparte preliminary decree especially when the vendor of the revision petitioner has fully contested the suit and has been unsuccessful at trial.

6. However, considering that the petitioner has approached the trial court seeking to set aside the exparte decree along with condone delay application and thereafter before this Court by way of this revision petition, I am inclined to grant liberty to the revision petitioner to file a statutory appeal challenging the preliminary decree subject to the appeal being filed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. The appellate court shall entertain the appeal without putting limitation against the revision petitioner and shall dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law after giving fair opportunity to the respondent/plaintiff to contest the same.

8. I am informed that the Commissioner has already been appointed in the

P.B.BALAJI.,J sr final decree application and therefore, there can be no impediment for the proceedings to go on, however, final decree shall not be passed for a period of eight weeks and in the interregnum period, it shall be open to the revision petitioner to seek interim protection in the first appeal to be filed.

9. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 10.09.2026 sr Index:yes/no Website:yes/no Speaking Order/Non-speaking order To The Principal Subordinate Court, Thiruchengodu, Namakkal CRP No. 1280 of 2026