A.RAMESH @ RAMALINGAM vs E.C.MURALI

CRP No. 2661 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 2661 of 2025
CNR: {HCMA011344012025}
A.Ramesh @ Ramalingam
S/o. K.S.Anandan, No.7, Neeli Appadurai Mudali
Street, Ponneri 601 204, Tiruvallur District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. E.C.Murali
S/o. Late.Chinnappa Mudali, Eliambedu
Village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District.
2. Balammal
W/o. Late.Chinnappa Mudali, Muthamizh
Street, A.A.M. Nagar, Upparapalayam Village,
Ponneri Taluk,
3. Rajalakshmi
D/o. late.Chinnappa Mudali, W/o. Vijayakumar,
Puduvoyal Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk
4. Narmada
D/o. Late.Chinnappa Mudali, W/o. Haridoss,
Muthamizh Street, A.A.M. Nagar,
Upparapalayam Village, Ponneri Taluk,
5. Nagajothi
D/o. Late.Chinnappa Mudali, w/o. Kalaiselvam,
Agaram Village, Via Chinnambedu, Ponneri
Taluk,
6. Munusamy Mudali
S/o. late.Govindaraja Mudali
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 12:24:08 pm )

CRP No. 2661 of 2025
Eliambedu Village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur
Dist.
7. M.Madhavan
S/o. Munusamy Mudali
Eliambedu Village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur
Dist.
8. M.Hari
S/o. Munusamy Mudali
Eliambedu Village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur
Dist.
9. J.Krishnamurthy
S/o. late. Jayarama Mudali
Eliambedu Village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur
Dist.
10.J.Gunasekaran
S/o. late. Jayarama Mudali
Eliambedu Village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur
Dist.
11.J.Narayanasamy
S/o. late. Jayarama Mudali
Eliambedu Village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur
Dist.
12.State bank of India
Repty by its Manager, T.Nagar Branch,
Chennai 017
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 26.02.2024, made in I.A. No.
1 of 2023 in O.S No. 1 of 2015 by the Principal Sub-Court, Ponneri.
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 12:24:08 pm )

CRP No. 2661 of 2025
For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Munuswamy
For Respondent(s): Mr.J.Hanusha for R9 to R11
R1, R2, R6, R8 & R10 - NRN
R3, R5, R7 & R12 – No Appearance
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the fair and decreetal order dated 26.02.2024
passed in I.A. No. 1 of 2023 in O.S No. 1 of 2015 on the file of the Principal
Sub-Court, Ponneri, wherein the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for
reopening the evidence on the side of the plaintiff to examine D1 to D5 as
witnesses on the side of plaintiff came to be dismissed by the Court below.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondents 9 & 11 and carefully perused the materials
available on record and this Court also carefully went through the order passed
by the Court below.
3.The petitioner is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.1 of 2015,
seeking for the relief of declaration and for consequential injunction restraining
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 12:24:08 pm )

CRP No. 2661 of 2025
th
the 12 defendant from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the property and for a permanent injunction restraining the
th
12 defendant from bringing the suit property for sale.
4.The suit was filed on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff had
purchased the property through a registered Sale Deed dated 17.12.2002 from
defendants 1 to 11. While so, an attempt was made by the officials of the Bank
to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property on the ground
st
that the property had been given as a security by the 1 defendant in his capacity
as a guarantor for the loan that was availed by a third party.
5.In the case in hand, defendants 1 to 11 remained ex-parte and did not
contest the case. The case reached the stage of trial and ultimately, the
defendants side evidence was closed on 19.07.2023. The petitioner wanted to
st
establish that the property was not the exclusive property of the 1 defendant
st
and therefore, the guarantee given by the 1 defendant will not bind the other
legal heirs of Chinnappan and that the petitioner had purchased the suit property
from all the legal heirs of Chinnappan.
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 12:24:08 pm )

CRP No. 2661 of 2025
6.The Court below dismissed the application mainly on the ground that
the suit had reached the stage of final arguments and that such an application
had been filed at the fag end of the proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order,
the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court.
th
7.In the case in hand, the effectively contesting respondent is the 12
th
respondent, who has been served with notice and the name of the 12
respondent has also been printed in the cause list. However, there is no
representation either in person or through counsel. It has to be borne in mind
that the legal heirs of Chinnappan did not chose to contest the case. Ultimately,
it is the title and interest of the petitioner/plaintiff that is at stake, having
purchased the property from D1 to D11. Therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff wants
st
to establish that the 1 defendant, by himself, could not have subjected the entire
property towards security. This can be done only if any one of the legal heirs is
examined as witness. The law does not provide any bar for the plaintiff to call
the defendants as witness in this case. In any case, D1 to D5 are not contesting
the right and title claimed by the petitioner. Hence, an opportunity must be
given to the petitioner to examine one of the legal heir of the deceased
Chinnappan.
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 12:24:08 pm )

CRP No. 2661 of 2025
8.In the light of the above discussion, the order dated 26.02.2024 passed
in I.A. No. 1 of 2023 in O.S No. 1 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Sub-
Court, Ponneri, is hereby set aside and there shall be a direction to issue
rd
subpoena to the 3 defendant, who shall be examined as a witness on the side of
the petitioner/plaintiff. The Court below, after completing the recording of the
evidence, shall dispose of the suit in O.S No. 1 of 2015, within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
9.In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed in the above
terms. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
29-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
SSR
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 12:24:08 pm )

CRP No. 2661 of 2025
To
The Principal Sub-Court, Ponneri.
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 12:24:08 pm )

CRP No. 2661 of 2025
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
SSR
CRP No. 2661 of 2025
29-10-2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 12:24:08 pm )