Madras HC Leaves Grandson In Partition Suit, Says His Share Claim Can Be Decided On Evidence Already Led

In brief

The question

Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the order impleading the first respondent as the 36th defendant.

The court held

The High Court disposed of the revision without setting aside the impleadment order, leaving the first respondent’s substantive claim to be considered by the trial court on the evidence.

It also directed

It directed the District Munsif Court, Ambattur, to dispose of O.S. No. 522 of 2007 within three months of receiving the order and to submit a report to the High Court; the connected CMP was closed.

01Facts

The suit for partition was instituted by Kishtammal in 1983.

After her death in 2004, the petitioner was added as the second plaintiff, claiming under a will allegedly executed by her in his favour.

p. 6

When the suit was at the stage of defence evidence, the first respondent applied under Order I Rule 10 CPC to be impleaded as the 36th defendant, claiming a share as Kishtammal’s heir and disputing the will.

p. 7

The District Munsif allowed the application, reasoning that the first respondent was Kishtammal’s grandson and a necessary party.

p. 7

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227, contending that the first respondent was his son, not Kishtammal’s son, and that the late application would delay the proceedings.

p. 8

02Issues

i.Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the order impleading the first respondent as the 36th defendant.

pp. 6–8

ii.Whether the first respondent’s impleadment required the trial court to reopen evidence or otherwise delay the suit.

pp. 8–9

03Law Applied

The petition invoked Article 227 of the Constitution, under which the High Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction over the trial court’s order.

p. 6

The impleadment application was made under Order I Rule 10 CPC, concerning the addition of parties to a suit.

pp. 6–7

The judgment cited no precedent and did not set out or determine a broader test for impleadment; instead, it disposed of the revision with case-specific observations and directions.

pp. 8–9

04Reasoning

The Court considered that entertaining and keeping the revision pending would further delay a suit already at the stage of defence evidence.

p. 8

Rather than decide the contested questions of the first respondent’s status, share, or the effect of the alleged will, it recorded that the petitioner disputed the first respondent’s claim on the basis of the will.

p. 9

The Court considered it sufficient to clarify that impleadment did not require reopening the evidence and that the trial court could determine the first respondent’s claimed right on the evidence already adduced by the parties.

p. 9

05Holding

The High Court disposed of the revision without setting aside the impleadment order, leaving the first respondent’s substantive claim to be considered by the trial court on the evidence.

pp. 9–10

It directed the District Munsif Court, Ambattur, to dispose of O.S. No. 522 of 2007 within three months of receiving the order and to submit a report to the High Court; the connected CMP was closed.

p. 10

LawLens.Madras High Court

Original Court PDF