Madras High Court
CRP/2069/2024 of E.A. BABY Vs RANIAMMAL on 3 September 2026
CRP No. 2069 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No. 2069 of 2024
AND
CMP NO. 11082 OF 2024
E.A. Baby
D/o.Late B.Ari Gowder, No.1/12A, Elithorai Village, Edapalli Post, The Nilgiris Dist.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Raniammal
W/o.Late Durairaj, No.1/12 Elithorai Village, Yedapalli Post, Coonoor - 643 104.
2. Saroja
W/o.Chandran, KJG School, Balacola Village, Uthagamandalam Tk.,The Nilgiris.
3. Ravi
S/o.Late B.Ari Gowder, 1/12 Elithorai Village, Yedapalli Post, Coonoor - 643 104, The Nilgiris.
4. Shanthi
W/o.Late Raju, 1/41 Horasolai Village, Nihung Post, Kotagiri Tk., The Nilgiris.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the award dated 03-04-2019 made in LAC.No.1/2019
(AS.No.2/2014, on the file of the District Court, Udhagamandalam), on the file of the Lok Adalat, Uthagamandalam, The Nilgiris.
CRP No. 2069 of 2024
For Petitioner(s):
Dr.C.Ravichandran
for Mr.Parthasarathy
For Respondent(s):
Mr. K.Karthikeyan for R1
Mr.Harish Venkat Praveenkumar
for Mr.A.Sam for R2 and R4
Ms.S.Valarmathi
for Mr.J.Franklin for R3
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 to set aside the Lok Adalat award dated 03-04-2019 passed in LAC.No.1/2019 in AS.No.2/2014, on the file of the District Court, Udhagamandalam), The Nilgiris.
2. The 2nd respondent herein/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.43 of 2011 seeking partition of the suit property against the defendants 1 to 4, in which, preliminary decree was passed by the Trial Court to divide the suit property into 5 equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff.
3. The 1st respondent herein/1st defendant, challenging the above said preliminary passed, has filed an appeal in A.S.No.2 of 2014, stating that some other family property was not included in the schedule to the suit. Pending appeal, the issues between the parties were settled amicably before the Lok Adalat, as per the joint memo filed by the parties. Now, the petitioner/2nd defendant has filed the present civil revision petition, challenging the said Lok
CRP No. 2069 of 2024
Adalat Award, stating that she did not sign the joint memo with knowledge of its contents, which was typed in English Language, and taking advantage of her illiteracy, the respondents obtained her signature in the joint memo.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the materials on record.
5. The learned Judge of this court, vide order dated 27.04.2026, has recorded the statements of the parties and the same is reproduced hereunder. 2 …….. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, taking advantage of the petitioner’s absence from her house, the 3rd respondent herein, demolished the dividing wall between his house and the petitioner’s house and joint the petitioner’s portion with his portion and further drove away the petitioner from her house. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the above civil revision petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent does not dispute the demolition of the dividing wall, however, he seeks time for getting instructions regarding the restoration of the demolished wall.”
CRP No. 2069 of 2024
6. Last hearing, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent stated that there was no representation made, admitting the demolition of the dividing wall. According to learned counsel for the third respondent, there are two houses bearing two different door numbers and the statement of the Junior counsel has been wrongly interpreted by the learned Judge, while passing the order on 27.04.2026.
7. In order to get the same clarified, I have already adjourned the matter twice. Till today, it appears that the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent has not even made an attempt to make a request before the learned Judge, who passed the order on 27.04.2026. As on date, the order dated 27.04.2026 clearly states that the 3rd respondent has admitted to the factum of the demolition of the dividing wall at Door No.1/12A, in which, there were two portions and one is under the occupation of the petitioner and the other is under the occupation of the 3rd respondent. It is also recorded that prior to the demolition of the dividing wall, there were two separate entrances.
8. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is willing to reconstruct the dividing wall at her cost. Despite sufficient opportunities given to the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, he has neither got instructions regarding restoration of the demolished wall nor any clarification from the learned Judge, who passed the order on 27.04.2026.
CRP No. 2069 of 2024
9. In the light of the above, I am inclined to permit the petitioner to reconstruct the dividing wall, that has been demolished by the 3rd respondent, as recorded by this court on 27.04.2026, at the costs of the petitioner. The petitioner shall also enjoy the separate portion independently through separate door/entrance , which was available to access the portion, which was origin`ally under her occupation.
10. With the above directions and observations, this civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 03-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MST To The District Judge, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris.
CRP No. 2069 of 2024
P.B.BALAJI J. MST CRP No. 2069 of 2024 03-09-2026