KRISHNAMOORTHY vs MANGAMMAL

2026:MHC:3604
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Order reserved on : 13.08.2026 Order pronounced on : 02.09.2026
CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
CRP.Nos.2117 of 2018 & 717 of 2026
CRP.No.2117 of 2018:
Krishnamoorthy .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.Mangammal
2.K.Kailashchenniyappan
3.S.Devabalan Suresh
4.Syndicate Bank,
Matalampatti Branch,
represented by its Manager,
Palakode Taluk,
Dharmapuri District.
5.C.Krishnan
6.Mysooran
7.V.Dhanapal
8.G.Perumal
9.S.Duraisamy
10.R.Selvi
11.Mani
12.D.Murugan
13.A.Mani
14.R.Kandasamy
15.Amsa
16.G.Sankar
17.R.Thirunavukarasu
18.C.Settu
19.Murugan
20.Sagunthala
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 11:34:01 am )

2026:MHC:3604
21.Malar @ Malarkodi
22.Annamalai
23.G.Manoharan
24.Lakshmiammal
25.K.Jaganathan
26.Palani
27.Sivasankar
28.Karthick
29.Annamalai
30.Chinnasamy
31.Palani .. Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the fair and
decretal order dismissing I.A.No.638 of 2017 in I.A.No.315 of 2012 in O.S.No.5 of
2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palakode, dated 18.04.2018.
CRP.No.717 of 2026:
Krishnamoorthy .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.Mangammal
2.Kaliyammal
3.Ambika
4.Poongodi
5.Mani
6.Saratha
7.Bothan
8.Madhu
9.Ganesan
10.Kuppu
11.Raja
12.Rajendiran
13.Stellamary .. Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the fair and
decretal order in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in O.S.No.5 of 2009 dated 24.11.2025 on the file of
the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Karimangalam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 11:34:01 am )

2026:MHC:3604
(In CRP.No.2117 of 2018)
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari
Senior Counsel for M/s.V.Srimathi

For Respondents : Mr.Venkateswaran for R1
No appearance for RR3, 4 ,8, 10,
20, 24 to 26, 30 & 31
RR2, 5 to 7, 9, 11 to 19, 21 to 23, 28 & 29
dismissed vide Court order dated 10.02.2023
RR27 died and dismissed -do-
(In CRP.No.717 of 2026)
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari
Senior Counsel for M/s.V.Srimathi

For Respondents : Mr.Venkateswaran
for Mrs.K.Indumathy Venkatesh for R1
Mr.M.Ravi for R4
No appearance for RR2, 3, 5 to 7, 9, 10, 13
RR8, 11 & 12 Not ready in notice.
COMMON ORDER
CRP.No.2117 of 2018 has been filed, challenging the order in I.A.No.638 of 2017
in I.A.No.315 of 2012 in O.S.No.5 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Palakode, in and by which, the application for amendment of the preliminary decree has
been dismissed.
2.CRP.No.717 of 2026 has been filed, challenging the order in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in
O.S.No.5 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palakode, in and whereby, the
th
Trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein, 8 defendant in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 11:34:01 am )

2026:MHC:3604
the suit, seeking to modify the preliminary decree or alternatively pass a fresh
preliminary decree.
3.I have heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel for Mrs.V.Srimathi,
learned counsel for the revision petitioner in both the revision petitions and
st
Mr.Venkateswaran, learned counsel for the 1 respondent in both the revision petitions
th
and Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel for the 4 respondent in CRP.No.717 of 2026.
4.Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel, at the outset, would state that the
st
1 respondent had instituted the suit for partition, despite the fact that there was a
registered partition deed even in the year 2002 and suppressing the same, as well as the
factum of sale having been effected to third parties who are also put in possession. The
learned Senior Counsel would further state that as on date, the registered sale deeds have
not been challenged and purchasers have also not been impleaded and though legitimate
attempts were made to challenge the decree passed by the Trial Court, granting
preliminary decree, there was a delay in preferring the first appeal and the same is
pending.
5.The learned Senior Counsel would further state that the Advocate
Commissioner, without even visiting the property, has filed a report and has not even
th
recorded and brought to the notice of the Court that a School is being run by the 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 11:34:01 am )

2026:MHC:3604
defendant in a portion of the suit property. He would further state that even the
registered partition deed of the year 2002 has not been challenged and all sales were to
the knowledge of the plaintiff and despite the same, the plaintiff filed the suit, without
impleading any of the subsequent purchasers, who were also in possession, even on the
date of institution of the suit. It is therefore the submission of the learned Senior
Counsel, Mr.V.Raghavachari, that merely because a final decree has been passed, it will
not prevent the Court from passing a fresh preliminary decree or modifying the
preliminary decree already passed. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel relies on
the decision of this Court in Jude Prathap Vs. Bavani Rani and others , reported in 2024
SCC Online Mad 12263 .
st
6.Per contra, Mr.Venkateswaran, learned counsel for the contesting 1 respondent
would submit that the revision petitioner has been in the habit of protracting the
proceedings and going all out to ensure that the plaintiff does not enjoy the fruits of the
decree obtained in the suit for partition. He would further state that though it has been
contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the preliminary decree has already been
challenged, till date, first appeal has not even been numbered and admittedly, there is no
order of interim stay granted by any Appellate Court and in such circumstances, the Trial
Court has rightly dismissed the applications filed by the revision petitioner. He would
also bring to my notice that the final decree itself has been passed and the petitioner has
been put in possession of her lawful entitlement and therefore, nothing survives for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 11:34:01 am )

2026:MHC:3604
consideration in these revision petitions. He would also place reliance on the order of
this Court in Aburvakounder (Died) and others Vs. Balamurugan and another in
CRP.No.385 of 2024 dated 03.01.2025 .
7.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned Senior
st
Counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1 respondent.
8.CRP.No.2117 of 2018 has been filed, challenging the dismissal of I.A.No.638 of
2017, in and by which, the petitioner sought to implead third party purchasers. The Trial
Court has dismissed the said application, finding that the petitioner had not even
disclosed the identity of the purchasers, details of the purchases made by them or
specific items of properties or portions thereof, which have been alienated, even in the
application. The Trial Court also found that insofar as the purchasers who have entered
the fray pending the final decree proceedings, they cannot be given an audience and
hence, dismissed the application. The petitioner also filed I.A.No.3 of 2023, seeking
modification of the preliminary decree or alternatively pass a fresh preliminary decree in
st
his favour, contending that after the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, the 1
defendant died and the share of the plaintiff was enlarged to 1/8th.
9.The case of the revision petitioner is that after a registered partition deed
between the defendants 1, 5, 7 and 8 on 03.01.2002, and even before the final decree
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 11:34:01 am )

2026:MHC:3604
was passed, the defendants have sold their separate shares to various subsequent
purchasers who built houses and also set up a School under the name and style of
“Sharon High School” and all these material facts were suppressed while filing the final
decree application. It is also brought to my notice that the plaintiff has also filed a suit in
O.S.No.7 of 2014, challenging the subsequent sale deeds as null and void and the said
suit has been renumbered as O.S.No.27 of 2023 and the same is pending before the
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Karimangalam.
st
10.The said application was resisted by the 1 respondent/plaintiff, contending
that succession opened only on the demise of the father in the year 1984, at which time,
the plaintiff was unmarried and therefore, applying Section 29A of the Tamil Nadu
st
Amendment Act 1 of 1990, the 1 respondent becomes a coparcerner by birth and
therefore, she is not bound by the partition deed entered into on 03.01.2002.
11.The bone of contention of the petitioner/8th defendant is that there has been a
partition in the family amongst the defendants 1, 5, 7 and 8 even on 03.01.2002 and the
st
same has not been challenged till date. However, the fact that the 1 respondent/plaintiff
was not married on the date of coming into force of Section 29A of the Act is not
st
disputed by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the partition, behind the back of the 1
st
respondent, will certainly not bind the 1 respondent. The preliminary decree was passed
way back on 22.12.2011 and thereafter, final decree application has also been filed and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 11:34:01 am )

2026:MHC:3604
st
today, admittedly, the final decree application has also been allowed and the 1
respondent has been put in possession of her entitlement. The objection of the
petitioner/8th defendant is with regard to the interest of third party buyers.
12.Curiously, none of the third party purchasers are before the Court, seeking to
implead themselves or questioning the preliminary and final decree granted in favour of
st
the 1 respondent. If at all the petitioner was aggrieved by the preliminary decree,
st
declaring the rights of the 1 respondent, then the only remedy open to the petitioner was
to challenge the preliminary decree in the manner known to law. Admittedly, till date,
the petitioner is not even able to number the first appeal, despite passage of more than a
decade. In such circumstances, it was not open for the petitioner to seek for modification
of the preliminary decree or for a fresh preliminary decree to be passed in a suit filed by
st
the 1 respondent.
13.As regards the contention that the subsequent purchasers have constructed
th
houses and one of them is also running a School (14 defendant), none of these
purchasers have approached this Court putting forth their objections or grievances. In
such circumstances, I do not see how the petitioner can canvass the grievances of other
third parties by taking out such applications. In fact, this Court, in Aburvakounder’s
case , held that partition suit is fully and final decided and a final decree has been passed
and the issue cannot be reopened thereafter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 11:34:01 am )

2026:MHC:3604
14.Though Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel has relied on the decision
of this Court in Jude Prathap Vs. Bavani Rani in CRP.(MD).No.307 of 2019 dated
10.07.2024 , that was a case where a third party to the suit challenged the dismissal of his
application to implead himself as a party defendant, this Court has held that when a
revision petition as against the dismissal of an impleading application is pending and the
Trial Court proceeded to pass a preliminary decree, relying on the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhanalakshmi and others Vs. P.Mohan and others , reported
in 2007 (3) CTC 332 , this Court held that if the impleading application by a pendente
lite purchaser in a partition suit is allowed, then mere passing of a preliminary decree
will not stand in the way. However, in the present case, it is not just a preliminary
st
decree, but final decree has also been passed admittedly and the 1 respondent has been
put in possession of her entitlement in terms of the preliminary decree, which has also
become final as on date. In such view of the matter, I do not find any grounds to
interfere with the orders of the Trial Court, especially under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
15.In fine, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Connected Civil
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, are closed.
02.09.2026
Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
ata
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 11:34:01 am )

2026:MHC:3604
P.B.BALAJI. J,
ata
To
The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Palacode, Dharmapuri.
Pre-delivery order made in
CRP.Nos.2117 of 2018 & 717 of 2026
02.09.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 11:34:01 am )