C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.568 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.04.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.568 of 2025 and C.M.P(MD) No.3100 of 2025 C.Senthil Manickam ... Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff Vs. 1. M.Chellam 2. C.Thamilarasi 3. C.Gopi 4. E.Kalppana ... Respondents 1 to 4/ Respondents/ Defendants 1 to 4 5. Lakshmanan 6. Karuppiah 7. Panchavarnam 8. Saravanapandian 9. Subasankari 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.568 of 2025 10. Alagurani 11. Sundar 12. The Sub Registrar Sub Registrar Office, Chettikulam, Madurai District. ... Respondents 5 to 12/ Respondents/ Proposed Parties PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to allow the revision petition by setting aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.220 of 2024 in O.S.No.316 of 2019 on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Madurai, dated 13.12.2024. For Petitioner : Mr.V.S.Kishok Kumar For R1 to R11 : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan For R12 : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader O R D E R The plaintiff in O.S.No.316 of 2019 on the file of the IV Additional District Court, Madurai, has filed the present Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of his application filed for impleading 8 third parties to the suit. 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.568 of 2025 2. A perusal of the records reveal that the plaintiff herein has filed the above said suit for the relief of partition and separate possession in the month of November 2019. The first defendant has alienated item Nos. 5 and 6 of “D” schedule property in favour of the 8th defendant on 14.08.2023. The 8th defendant has created a lay out. An order of status quo has passed on 22.01.2024. Thereafter, the 8th defendant had sold some of the plots in favour of the proposed defendants 9, 10 and 11. 3. The plaintiff herein has filed I.A.No.220 of 2024 to implead the brothers and sister of D1 and the persons, who have purchased the property from D1 and the proposed defendants 5 to 7. The plaintiff also wanted to implead the purchasers of plots as defendants 9 to 11. The plaintiff has also proposed to implead the concerned Sub Registrar in order to avoid further alienation. This application came to be dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the alienations are pendente lite alienation and therefore, they are not necessary parties. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.568 of 2025 4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, the suit is for partition and therefore, the purchasers of the suit schedule property may have a right over the share that is likely to be allotted in favour of the co-sharers. In such circumstances, they are necessary parties. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ proposed parties submitted that item Nos.5 and 6 of “D” schedule property was originally owned by the mother of D1, which had devolved upon by D1 and the proposed D5 to D7. Therefore, the plaintiff, who is the son of D1 cannot make a claim over the suit schedule properties on the ground that they are ancestral properties. He further submitted that since in C.M.A.(MD)No. 414 of 2024, the trial Court was directed to dispose of the suit within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, any allowing of impleading application would only delay the proceedings. 6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 7. As far as the proposed defendants 5 to 7 are concerned, they are the brothers and sister of the first defendant. Only in their presence, it could be 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.568 of 2025 decided whether the item Nos. 5 and 6 in “D” schedule property are their absolute property or they are ancestral properties. Therefore, they are necessary parties. 8. As far as the proposed 8th defendant namely, Saravanapandian is concerned, he had purchased from D1 and proposed D5 to D7 even prior to the order of status quo. Therefore, he is also a necessary party. As far as proposed D.9 to D.11 are concerned, they are said to have purchased the property only after the order of status quo and therefore, their rights have to be protected only by the 8th defendant. As far as the 12th defendant is concerned, he is not a necessary party. 9. In view of the above said deliberations, the order impugned in the Civil Revision Petition is partly set aside and I.A.No.220 of 2024 stands allowed only with regard to proposed defendants 5 to 8. In respect of others the order of the trial Court stands confirmed. Considering the fact that an order of status quo in operating from January 2024 onwards, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.316 of 2019 on or before 31.08.2025. 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.568 of 2025 10. With the above said observations, this Civil Revision Petition stands partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed. 25.04.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ebsi To 1. The IV Additional District Court, Madurai. 2. The Section Officer, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.568 of 2025 R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J. ebsi C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.568 of 2025 25.04.2025 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis