CRP/5288/2026 of Subramaniam Vs Rathinam on 1 September 2026

ORDER

This revision petition has been filed to aside the fair and decretal order dated 10-07-2026, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under section 47 of CPC passed in REA.No.16 of 2025 in REP.No,17 of 2024 in OS.No.182 of 1991 on the file of the I Additional District, Namakkal.

2. The first respondent herein namely, Rathinam/3rd plaintiff and her two sisters namely Kaliammal and Pavayaee/plaintiffs 1 and 2 had filed O.S.No.182 of 1991 against their brother, namely P.V.Nadesa Gounder and his legal heirs, seeking division of the suit property by metes and bounds and to allot ¾ shares to them. In the above said suit, preliminary decree was passed, allotting shares to them. Thereafter, to effect such partition and to pass final decree, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.481 of 2012. The said application was allowed, by allotting A schedule property, as found in the Advocate Commissioner’s report, to Pavayee (2nd plaintiff) and B schedule property to Rathinam (3rd plaintiff).

3. The third plaintiff (Rathinam), subsequently, filed E.P.No.17 of 2024, seeking delivery of vacant possession, in which, E.P.No.16 of 2025 was filed by the petitioner herein, who is grand son of Kaliammal (1st plaintiff), seeking direction to the respondents 1 to 5 to receive a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- or such other equitable sum determined by the court from him and to execute sale deed in his favour. The said petition was dismissed by the executing court. Challenging the above said order, the present revision petition has been filed.

4. I heard Mr.S.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Danyakumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would mainly contend that the Section 47 application was filed pending final decree proceedings in a suit for partition, claiming preferential right to purchase the share of the respondents/plaintiffs, invoking Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act. Though he would contend that the court below had erroneously disentitled the petitioner to such preferential right on the premise that he is only claiming under the rights of his father, who was the original co-owner, such finding may be erroneous, since even a son of pre-deceased son is also Class-I legal heir, under the Hindu Succession Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes to the legal position that the right to purchase the share of the other co-owners would arise only when the said co-owner proposes to alienate his/her share. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore would state that the right of the petitioner may be preserved, especially, since the respondents have come on record stating that the respondents do not intend to alienate their share.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would state that the petitioner has been protracting the proceedings right from day one and despite final decree application being taken up for enquiry, the petitioner is attempting to put spokes by taking out such frivolous applications, include under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, he would pray for dismissal of the revision petition.

7. The Trial Court has non suited the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act. I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the very spirit of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act was to prevent fragmentation/ disintegration of the family properties and allowing strangers to come in. In such circumstances, the court below was certainly in error in holding that the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 5not being Class-I legal heirs, the petitioner was not entitled to take out an application under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act.

8. At the same time, the respondents have taken a definite stand that they do not propose to alienate the suit properties, especially, the properties, which were to be allotted to them under the final decree, pursuant to the preliminary decree passed in the suit for partition. Therefore, the application under Section 22 was in fact, premature and on this ground, I do not see any error committed by the Trial Court, warranting interference in this revision petition.

9. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed, however, preserving the right of the petitioner to invoke Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, in the event of the respondents proposing to alienate their entitlement and right of first refusal shall be given to the petitioner. Considering the fact that the suit was filed way back in the year 1991, and despite the respondents/plaintiffs succeeding and they have not been put in physical possession of their entitlement, after division by metes and bounds, I am inclined to direct the executing court to dispose of the final decree proceedings, within a period of two months from the date receipt of copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 01-09-2026 Indes: Yes/No Speaking/Non- speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MST To. The I Additional District Court, Namakkal.

P.B.BALAJI, J. MST CRP No. 5288 of 2026 01-09-2026