Thangakani vs Pothimuthu Nadar

Court
Madras High Court

CRP(MD) No. 2511 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
CRP(MD) No. 2511 of 2025
CNR:{HCMD010735912025}
and
CMP(MD)No.14989 of 2025
Thangakani
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Pothimuthu Nadar
2. Balasubramanian
3. Ganapathiyappan
4. Narayanan
5. Isakkiyapillai
6. Rajavelu
Gurunathan (Died)
7. Devi
8. Saraswathi
Parvathiyammal (Died),
V.Periyanadar (Died)
9. Revathy
__________
Page  1  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 05:45:53 pm )

CRP(MD) No. 2511 of 2025
10.Jeyalakshmi
11.Narayanaraj
12.Suyambukani
13.Prabakaran,
14.Buvaneshwari
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: J-36. Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of The
Constitution of India to set aside the order and decree in I.A.No. 6 of
2023 in O.S.No. 163 of 2017 dated 11.11.2024 on the file of the
Subordinate Court, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District.
For Petitioner(s) :M/s C.T. Perumal
For Respondent(s) :Mr.R. Shankar Ganesh
For R2
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order
dated 11.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.6 of 2023 in O.S.No.163 of 2017 on
the file of the Subordinate Court, Valliyoor.
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff, and the respondents are the
defendants. The petitioner filed the suit seeking a declaration that the
preliminary decree dated 13.07.2010 passed in O.S.No.122 of 2009 on
__________
Page  2  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 05:45:53 pm )

CRP(MD) No. 2511 of 2025
the file of the Subordinate Court, Valliyoor, as null and void and not
binding on her. According to the petitioner, the suit property originally
belonged to her father, who died leaving behind five children, namely,
three daughters and two sons. However, the male legal heirs instituted a
suit for partition without impleading the petitioner as a party, and a
preliminary decree was passed in the said suit. The petitioner came to
know about the proceedings only when steps were taken for passing the
final decree. Thereafter, she filed an application seeking to implead
herself as a party to the final decree proceedings. However, the
respondents did not pursue the final decree proceedings, and the same
were left unproceeded.
3. In the written statement, the respondents/defendants
contended that a mere prayer for declaration was not maintainable and
that the petitioner ought to have sought the relief of partition as well.
Therefore, she filed an application seeking to amend the plaint by
incorporating the relief of partition and separate possession, deleting Item
Nos.2 and 3 of the suit schedule property as well as Item No.7 of the first
schedule property, and seeking allotment of her 1/5th share. The said
application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the
proposed amendment introduced a new cause of action and that the
__________
Page  3  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 05:45:53 pm )

CRP(MD) No. 2511 of 2025
application had been filed belatedly. Aggrieved by the same, the present
Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the
application had been filed belatedly, particularly when the suit itself was
instituted in the year 2017. It was further contended that the petitioner
had been repeatedly filing applications for amendment and other
interlocutory applications with the sole intention of dragging on the
proceedings. Taking note of the petitioner's conduct and intention, the
trial Court rightly dismissed the application, and therefore, the impugned
order does not warrant any interference.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
6. Admittedly, the present suit was instituted by the legal
heirs of Periyava Nadar, who was the original owner of the suit schedule
th
property. The respondents 1 and 2 are the brothers and the 8 respondent
Saraswathi and one Parvathiyammal (died) are the sisters of the
petitioner. They had earlier instituted a suit in O.S.No.122 of 2009 for
partition without impleading the petitioner as a party and had also
__________
Page  4  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 05:45:53 pm )

CRP(MD) No. 2511 of 2025
obtained a preliminary decree therein. The petitioner seeks to declare the
said preliminary decree as null and void and not binding on her.
However, the petitioner had not sought the relief of partition in the
present suit, despite claiming that she is also entitled to a share in the suit
schedule property.
7. It is true that the application for amendment was filed
belatedly. However, it is pertinent to note that, even in the written
statement, the respondents had contended that a mere suit for declaration,
without seeking the relief of partition, was not maintainable. It is also
stated that the petitioner had earlier initiated proceedings in the final
decree application seeking to establish her rights. However, since the
respondents did not pursue the final decree proceedings, the petitioner
was left with no other option, but to seek an amendment of the plaint to
incorporate the necessary reliefs.
8. This Court is of the view that the petitioner has
consistently asserted that she is one of the legal heirs of Periyava Nadar,
who was the father of the respondents 1, 2 and 8, and is consequently
entitled to a share in the suit schedule property. Her specific case is that
the preliminary decree obtained by the respondents in the earlier partition
__________
Page  5  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 05:45:53 pm )

CRP(MD) No. 2511 of 2025
suit is not binding on her. By way of the present amendment, she seeks
to incorporate the relief of partition and separate possession and to delete
certain items from the suit schedule property, rather than institute another
independent suit for partition. The proposed amendment would enable the
Court to adjudicate all the issues arising between the parties in a
comprehensive manner and would also avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
9. It is also relevant to note that the respondents have not
disputed the petitioner's status as one of the legal heirs of Periyava Nadar.
In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that permitting the
proposed amendment would not cause any prejudice to the respondents.
On the other hand, it would facilitate the effective adjudication of the real
controversy between the parties. Therefore, the order passed by the trial
Court warrants interference and is liable to be set aside.
10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, and
the order passed by the Subordinate Court, Valliyoor, is set aside.
Consequently, I.A.No.6 of 2023 is allowed. The petitioner is directed to
carry out the necessary amendments in the plaint within a period of 14
days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
__________
Page  6  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 05:45:53 pm )

CRP(MD) No. 2511 of 2025
11. Since O.S.No.163 of 2017 is a suit instituted in the year
2017, and it is admitted by both parties that evidence has already been
adduced, the Subordinate Court, Valliyoor, is directed to dispose of the
suit within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. Both parties are directed to extend their cooperation for the
expeditious disposal of the suit and shall not seek unnecessary
adjournments or otherwise prolong the proceedings. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
RM
To
1. The Section Officer
VR Section
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai
2. The Subordinate Court, Valliyoor.
__________
Page  7  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 05:45:53 pm )

CRP(MD) No. 2511 of 2025
R.POORNIMA, J.
RM
CRP(MD) No. 2511 of 2025
(2/2)
05-11-2026
__________
Page  8  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 05:45:53 pm )