CRP(MD)/2264/2026 of B.Sankarganesh Vs Natarajan on 9 September 2026

COMMON ORDER

CRP(MD)No.2264 of 2026 has been filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.492 of 2024 in O.S.No.146 of 2024, dated 25/06/2026, whereby the application filed by the 1st respondent, who is a third party to the suit, seeking to implead himself as a party to the suit, was allowed. Whereas, CRP(MD)No.2293 of 2026 has been filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.12 of 2026 in O.S.No.146 of 2024 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Kumbakonam, whereby the application filed by respondents 1 to 3, who are third parties to the suit, seeking to implead themselves as parties to the suit, was allowed.

2. The suit schedule property originally belonged to one Rajathiammal, who purchased the same from one Viswanatha Iyer and others under a registered sale deed dated 22/12/1966, registered as Document No.333 of 1967. The said Rajathiammal was working as a Chief Secretary in Calcutta and retired as a Class-I Officer in the year 1998. The revenue records, house tax receipts and electricity records relating to the property stood in her name. The respondent in CRP(MD)No.2264 of 2026 and respondents 1 to 3 in CRP(MD)No.2293 of 2026 claim to be the legal heirs of late Rajathiammal. They had filed applications seeking to implead themselves in the suit stating that the husband of Rajathiammal namely Sundar Raman, died on 25/12/2007 due to old age and that the said Rajathiammal had no children or legal heirs of her own and that she was residing separately and was being looked after by them. Since the 2nd respondent in CRP(MD)No.2293 of 2026, namely Srikanth, was involved in a cooking contract and was frequently required to go out of station, he used to leave the said Rajathiammal under the care of respondents 1 and 3 in CRP(MD)No.2293 of 2026, namely Sriram and Srikanth, and the 1st respondent in CRP(MD)No.2264 of 2026 namely Natarajan.

3. It is stated that Rajathiammal was possessed of about 100 sovereigns of gold jewels, 40 kilograms of silver articles and substantial cash deposits, apart from a bank balance of more than Rs.1 crore. According to the private respondents herein, while they were residing away from the property, the petitioner/plaintiff and his wife attempted to enter the house of Rajathiammal. Though they were cautioned by the private respondents, they allegedly came along with henchmen and drove them away from the house. Thereafter, the said Srikanth received a telephone call from the Inspector of Police, Nachiyarkovil, informing him that a foul smell was emanating from the house and that the dead body of Rajathiammal, with injuries and bloodstains, had been found therein. Since Srikanth was residing at Chennai, before he could reach the place, the dead body was handed over to the relatives and cremated on the same night. Suspecting the circumstances surrounding her death, a complaint was lodged before the police. Though the Sub-Inspector of Police assured that appropriate action would be taken, no effective investigation was thereafter conducted. Subsequently, the private respondents came to know that the house of Rajathiammal had been demolished with the help of a JCB by the plaintiff and his wife. When questioned, they were allegedly threatened with dire consequences. The private respondents further claim that several revenue records had been manipulated and that the gold and silver articles belonging to Rajathiammal were missing from the house. They also allege that a false Will had been created in favour of the petitioner. According to them, the petitioner herein, as plaintiff, instituted the suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction, without impleading them as necessary parties, claiming ownership over the suit schedule property on the basis of an alleged Will said to have been executed by Rajathiammal. Hence, they filed the impugned applications seeking to implead themselves as necessary parties to the suit. The said applications were allowed by the trial Court on 25/06/2026. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff is the dominus litis and cannot be compelled to contest the suit against persons, against whom he has neither sought any relief nor pleaded any cause of action. It was further submitted that the trial Court failed to consider the order dated 09/11/2024 passed by the Tahsildar pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.

21929 of 2024. According to the learned counsel, the respondents are not the legal heirs of the deceased Rajathiammal and therefore, they have no right to seek impleadment in the present suit.

5. The learned counsel further submitted that the suit is one for permanent injunction against the statutory authorities and is not a comprehensive suit for declaration of title or a testamentary proceeding. If the private respondents claim any independent right or title over the suit property, they ought to be relegated to an independent comprehensive suit and cannot be permitted to convert the present proceedings into a title dispute and therefore, the impugned orders passed by the trial court are liable to be set aside and the civil revision petitions are to be allowed.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submitted that Rajathiammal died without leaving any children and that the private respondents were taking care of her during her lifetime. It was contended that the respondents have an independent claim as the legal heirs of Rajathiammal and that their presence is necessary for effectively adjudicating the dispute relating to the title and

the genuineness of the documents relied upon by the petitioner. It was further submitted that the trial Court, after considering the documents produced by the respondents, rightly allowed the impleading applications. According to the private respondents, if the petitioner establishes his title before the competent Court, the respondents would abide by the result. However, in the present suit, where the petitioner seeks to assert his right over the property and to have his name reflected in the revenue records on the basis of the alleged Will, the respondents, who claim to be the legal heirs of Rajathiammal, are necessary parties for proper and effective adjudication and prays for dismissal of theses civil revision petitions.

7. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents submitted that pursuant to the direction of this Court, a report was submitted by the Block Development Officer, Thiruvidaimarudur, on 20/01/2025 regarding the revenue records relating to the suit property. In the said report, it was stated that certain documents relied upon by the petitioner appeared to have been fraudulently created. It was further stated that the patta and house tax records standing in the name of the petitioner had subsequently been cancelled and that the name of Rajathiammal was reflected as the original owner in the relevant records.

8. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is an Advocate by profession. The private respondents contend that though the petitioner claims title over the property, certain documents were created by him to establish such title, which aspect is stated to have been noticed in the report of the BDO.

9. The learned counsel for the private respondents further submitted that respondents 1 and 2 in CRP(MD)No.2293 of 2026 claim to be the sons of Krishnamurthy, who is stated to be the brother of Rajathiammal, while the 3rd respondent claims to be the daughter of Muthulakshmi, who is also stated to be a sister of Rajathiammal. Similarly, the 1st respondent in CRP(MD)No.2264 of 2026 claims that the said Rajathiammal is his maternal aunt. The private respondents have produced a legal heirship certificate and other documents in support of their claim. Therefore, according to them, their presence is necessary for determining the rival claims.

10. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

11. The admitted position is that the petitioner has instituted the suit seeking relief in respect of the suit schedule property on the basis of a Will allegedly executed by Rajathiammal in his favour. The private respondents, in both the cases, on the other hand, claim to be the legal heirs of the said Rajathiammal and have produced documents in support of their claim. Therefore, the question as to whether the Will relied upon by the petitioner is genuine and whether the private respondents have any right or interest in the property, are matters which require adjudication by the competent Court.

12. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff is the dominus litis and that the private respondents ought to institute an independent suit, the said principle cannot be mechanically applied when the persons sought to be impleaded claim an independent right in the very property which is the subject matter of the suit and when the adjudication of such claim is necessary for effectively deciding the controversy.

13. In the present case, the private respondents have not merely raised a bald claim. They have produced documents claiming relationship with the deceased Rajathiammal and have also relied upon the revenue records and other documents relating to the suit property.

14. The official report of the BDO also assumes significance, inasmuch as it refers to the cancellation of certain revenue records and the existence of the name of Rajathiammal as the original owner. It is also relevant to note that serious allegations have been made by the private respondents regarding the circumstances surrounding the death of Rajathiammal and the subsequent demolition of her house. Though such allegations are disputed and their truth or otherwise cannot be decided in the present Civil Revision Petitions, they demonstrate that there are serious disputes between the parties concerning the property and the documents relied upon by them.

15. The contention of the petitioner that the private respondents are not necessary parties and that they must necessarily be relegated to an independent suit cannot, at this stage, be accepted. The presence of the private respondents would assist the trial Court in effectively and completely adjudicating the dispute involved in the suit, particularly when the petitioner himself seeks to assert his right over the property on the basis of the alleged Will.

16. The scope of the present Civil Revision Petitions is limited to examining the correctness of the orders of the trial Court allowing the impleading applications. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the genuineness of the Will, the title of the parties, the status of the respondents as legal heirs, or the allegations relating to the death of Rajathiammal. All these issues are left open to be decided by the competent Court on the basis of the evidence to be let in by the respective parties.

17. In such circumstances, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the suit and dispose of the same, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order.

09.09.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet:: Yes / No er To,

1. The Panchayat Secretary, Govanur Panchayat, Govanur Village, Nachiyarkovil, Kumbakonam Taluk, Thanjavur District.

2. The Village Administrative Officer, Govanur Village, Nachiyarkovil. Kumbakonam Taluk, Thanjavur District.

3. The Block Development Officer, Thiruvidaimarudur.

4. The Inspector of Police, Nachiyarkoil Police Station, Kumbakonam Taluk, Thanjavur District.

5. The Tahsildar, Kumbakonam.

6. The Assistant Director of Panchayats, District Collectorate, Thanjavur.

7. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kumbakonam.

8. The District Revenue Officer, District Collectorate, Thanjavur.

9. The District Collector, District Collectorate, Thanjavur.

10. The Special Government Pleader, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

11. The Government Advocate, (Criminal side), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

R. POORNIMA,

J.

er C.R.P(MD)Nos.2264 and 2293 of 2026 09.09.2026