CRP/5027/2026 of Veerappa Gounder Vs Tamilselvi on 2 November 2026

COMMON ORDER

These civil revision petitions have been filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the orders respectively (i) dated 05.4.2024 made in I.A No.1 of 2021 and (ii) dated 15.4.2024 made in I.A.N.3 of 2023, both in I.A.No.589 of 2013 in O.S.No.180 of

2010 on the file of the Second Additional Subordinate Court, Erode (for short, the Court below) wherein the applications filed by the respective first respondent/third parties seeking to implead themselves in the final decree proceedings, came to be allowed.

2. Heard the respective learned counsel appearing on either side.

3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record and more particularly the impugned orders.

4. The said suit was filed by the second respondent seeking for the relief of partition, for allotment of 4/18th share in the suit property and for permanent injunction. A preliminary decree came to be passed in the said suit on 23.2.2012 and thereafter, it was confirmed upto this Court in S.A.No.386 of 2013 vide judgment dated 04.10.2013.

5. The final decree proceedings were initiated in I.A.No.589 of 2013. Later, the respective first respondent/third parties filed the said applications seeking to implead themselves as parties in the final decree proceedings on the ground that they had a right in the common well and the common pathway and that their right was sought to be defeated by getting the final decree process done behind their back.

6. The Court below, by the impugned orders, allowed the said applications and aggrieved by that, the above revisions have been filed before this Court.

7. The main ground that was urged on the side of the petitioner/D1 is that merely by producing a revenue record/A register, the respective first respondent/third parties could not implead themselves in the final decree proceedings since they were neither necessary parties nor proper parties; that under the guise of getting impleaded in the final decree proceedings, an attempt was made by the respective first respondent/third parties to grab the suit properties without any right; that the Court below is only in the process of dividing the properties by metes and bounds; that the Court below is not deciding the rights of the parties in the common well and the common pathway; and that therefore, impleading the respective first respondent/third parties would go beyond the scope of the final decree proceedings.

8. In the considered view of this Court, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/D1, the Court below is not deciding the rights of the respective first respondent/third parties in the common well and the common pathway. The Court below is only proceeding further to divide the suit properties by metes and bounds and allot the respective shares to the parties. However, the common well and the common pathway form part of the proceedings. If the respective first respondent/third parties are left out and they are not included in the final decree proceedings, later, after the final decree is passed, the respective first respondent/ third parties will start one more litigation to the effect that they have a right over the common well and the common pathway, which has not been considered in the final decree proceedings. That will unnecessarily drag on the civil proceedings.

9. In the light of the above, when the Court below divides the suit properties by metes and bounds by allotting the shares to the respective parties, if the respective first respondent/third parties have a right over the common well and the common pathway, that can also be properly considered while balancing the equities. This process will ensure that a future litigation is avoided. It is made clear that the scope of impleading the respective first respondent/ third parties is confined only to the common well and the common pathway and nothing more. Therefore, this aspect shall be kept in mind by the Court below while passing the final decree.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the parties can be referred to mediation in order to make one attempt for an amicable settlement in the final decree proceedings.

11. In the light of the said submission, the Second Additional Subordinate Court, Erode shall refer the parties to the Mediation Centre attached to the District Court, Erode by giving six weeks’ time to see if the parties can reach a settlement. If the parties are able to reach a settlement, a final decree can be passed in terms of the settlement that may be arrived at and if not, the Court below can proceed further with the final decree proceedings in accordance with law keeping in mind the above observations and the final decree proceedings shall be completed within a period of three months thereafter.

12. The civil revision petitions are disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMPs are closed.

02-11-2026 To The Second Additional Subordinate Court, Erode. RS

N.ANAND VENKATESH,J RS CRP.Nos.5027 & 6003 of 2026 & CMP.Nos.21951 & 26064 of 2026 02-11-2026