CRP/1114/2026 of Senthilkumar Vs R.Saraswathi on 11 August 2026

ORDER

This revision petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 05.12.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.125 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nilgiris.

2. I have heard Mr.M.Rajasekar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/5th defendant in the suit for partition and Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.L.Palanimuthu, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff.

3. Mr.M.Rajasekar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner inviting my attention to the judgment of this Court in S.A.No.813 of 2009 dated 26.07.2022, would state that this Court had given a specific direction to hear the views of the purchasers, before passing any final decree and unfortunately, misconstruing the order passed by this Court in the second appeal, the trial Court, in the final decree proceedings, has thought it unnecessary to implead the purchasers of various items of the property. He would therefore, pray for the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.1 of 2023, being the final decree application, to be set aside or modified suitably.

4. Per contra, Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi, learned Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent would firstly point out that the suit has been pending from 1985 onwards and despite a preliminary decree in respect of 1/3rd share being granted in favour of the 1st respondent/plaintiff, the 1st respondent is unable to enjoy the fruits of the decree till date, despite lapse of 40 years. The learned Senior Counsel would also point out to the observations made by this Court in the second appeal judgment and would contend that there is no necessity for the Court to issue notice to any of the purchasers and it is for the purchasers to come forward to seek equity and get the properties purchased by them, if permissible, allotted to them. The learned Senior Counsel therefore prays for dismissal of the revision petition.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent.

6. The interpretation of the judgment of this Court in S.A.No.813 of 2009 falls for consideration in the revision petition. The relevant paragraphs on which the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, as well as the learned Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent have relied upon are extracted hereunder for easy reference: “30. In the instant case, all the legal heirs of Karia Nanja Gowder had been impleaded. The sons had been impleaded and on their death, their legal representatives had been impleaded as defendants. Some of the purchasers were also impleaded. But the purchasers are independent persons who cannot claim to be categorized as co~sharers; They can claim a share in the property or equity, not on the basis of their birth or as a right. The concept of equity would arise to purchase of the property and the Court, while actually dividing the properties into metes and bounds ensures equity, since, they had also paid consideration for such purchase.

31. In effect, even though, they purchased the properties, the Court to that extent examines allotment, after division of metes and bounds the properties purchased by them if it can be accommodated. Otherwise, the normal right which the vendee will have against the vendor, would be a right to enforce the indemnity which the vendor had held out at the time of the sale transaction. That would imply an independent action on the basis of the sale deed executed by the vendor, if the vendor held out that a proper and valid title would be passed to to the purchasers and on failure undertook to indemnify the purchasers.

32. I would handover that privilege of applying equity to the trial Court that whenever any final decree application is filed to issue notice to all the purchasers and at the time, when

Commissioner is appointed, to include the warrant to the Commissioner to examine whether the properties already purchased could be allotted to those purchasers.”

7. From a reading of the above paragraphs, ii is clear that this Court has clearly held that the purchasers do not have any right to participate in the final decree proceedings being categorised as co-sharers and at best, they may be entitled to seek equity, by seeking allotment of the properties purchased by them in their favour. Paragraph No.32 of the said judgment, in fact, assumes more significance.

8. This Court had directed that whenever the final decree application is filed and a Commissioner is appointed, the warrant of commission should also include examination as to whether the properties already purchased could be allotted to the respective purchases. In view of the above observation, I do not find any serious infirmity committed by the trial Court, warranting interference in revision.

9. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, at the same time, it is clarified that if at all the purchasers are being put on notice by the Commissioner at the time of inspection, they shall be at liberty to approach the trial Court and seek equity to be exercised in their favour in the pending final decree application, as permitted by this Court in the second appeal proceedings.

In the light of the above, while confirming the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.1 of 2023, appointing a Commissioner, it is made clear that the Advocate Commissioner shall put on notice the purchasers of any of the items of the properties, which he seeks to inspect, before filing the report and if any of the purchasers are interested to seek for equity to be exercised in their favour, it shall be open to them to approach the trial Court and seek for appropriate orders in the final decree application. Considering that the suit has been filed in the year 1985, I am inclined to direct the District Munsif Court, Nilgiris, to dispose of the final decree application, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 11.08.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ATA To The District Munsif Court, Nilgiris.

P.B.BALAJI, J. ATA CRP No.1114 of 2026 11.08.2026