Veerappa Gounder vs Tamilselvi
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRP.Nos.5027 & 6003 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Civil Revision Petition Nos.5027 & 6003 of 2026
& CMP.Nos.21951 & 26064 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011994852025} &
CNR:{HCMA012037922026}
Veerappa Gounder
S/o. Marappa Gounder,
Eranian Kattu Thottam,
Perumapalayam,
Elavamalai,
Bhavani Taluk,
Erode District.
...Petitioner in
both CRPs
Vs
1. Tamilselvi
W/o Marasami,
No.9/48,
Perumapalayam,
Elavamalai,
Bhavani Taluk,
Erode District.
...R1 in CRP.No.
5027 of 2026
__________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:34:14 pm )
CRP.Nos.5027 & 6003 of 2026
2.Tamilselvi
W/o. Palanisamy,
Door No.1/554,
(Old No.23)
Thayirpalayam,
Periyapulliyur Village,
Bhavani Taluk,
Erode District.
...R1 in CRP.No.
6003 of 2026
3.D.Saveetha
W/o. Dhakshnamoorthi,
No.9/144, Periyar Nagar,
Perumapalayam,
Elavamalai, Bavani Taluk,
Erode District.
4.Chandrasekar
S/o. Veerappa Gounder,
Pavayee Thannerpandalpalayam,
Periya Agraharam Post,
Erode Taluk.
5.Angayammal
W/o. Thirumalaisamy,
Pavayee Thannerpandalpalayam,
Periya Agraharam Post,
Erode Taluk.
6.Saraswathi
W/o. Muthusamy,
Gundumalai Thottam,
Karukkupalayam,
Jambai Post,
Bhavani Taluk.
...R2 to R5 in
Both the CRPs
__________
Page 2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:34:14 pm )
CRP.Nos.5027 & 6003 of 2026
PETITIONS under Article 227 of The Constitution of India
against the orders and final 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 Petitioner in
both CRPs: Mr.I.Abrar Mohamed Abdullah for
Mr.P.Muthukumarasamy
For Respondents
in both CRPs: Mr.M.R.Thangavel for R1 in
CRP.No.5027 of 2026
Ms.S.Shivapriya for R1 in
CRP.No.6003 of 2026
R2 to R5 in CRP.No.5027 of 2026:
Served & No appearance
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
__________
Page 3 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:34:14 pm )
CRP.Nos.5027 & 6003 of 2026
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
th
for the relief of partition, for allotment of 4/18 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.
__________
Page 4 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:34:14 pm )
CRP.Nos.5027 & 6003 of 2026
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
__________
Page 5 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:34:14 pm )
CRP.Nos.5027 & 6003 of 2026
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.
__________
Page 6 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:34:14 pm )
CRP.Nos.5027 & 6003 of 2026
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
__________
Page 7 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:34:14 pm )
CRP.Nos.5027 & 6003 of 2026
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
__________
Page 8 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:34:14 pm )
CRP.Nos.5027 & 6003 of 2026
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J
RS
CRP.Nos.5027 & 6003 of 2026 &
CMP.Nos.21951 & 26064 of 2026
02-11-2026
__________
Page 9 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:34:14 pm )