CMP No. 18941 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI CMP No. 18941 and 18956 of 2026 in CRP SR.Nos.90897 and 101857 of 2026 1. Vijayabala Srikumar 2. E.Shanmugapriya ..Appellant(s) Vs 1. Pushpammal alies Gnanapushpa 2. J.Gandhi 3. Champa Karthik 4. Geetha Sathiyanarayanan 5. Kalavathi Vivekanandan 6. G.V.Bharath 7. G.V Raj 8. Rajalakshmi Ganapathi 9. Gomathi Venkatraman 10.Padma 11.Sakunthala 12.Kanchana 13.Kali 14.D.Fathima https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP No. 18941 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 15.D.Vadivalli 16.D.Hemasundari 17.D.Soji 18.D.Hemamalini 19.Chinnammal 20.Veeraraghavan 21.Muniammal 22.Rajendran 23.Rajan ..Respondent(s) In C.M.P.No.18941 of 2026 PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, against the preliminary judgement and decree dated 12.02.1997 passed in O.S.No.27 of 1990, on the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu. In C.M.P.No.18956 of 2026 PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, against the final decree dated 31.01.2008 passed in I.A.No.650 of 2003 in O.S.No.27 of 1990 on the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu. For Appellants: Mr.T.V.Suresh Kumar for Tsk Legal Llp COMMON ORDER In view of commonality of the issue involved, these Civil Revision Petitions are decided by a common order. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP No. 18941 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4 2. Heard Mr.T.V.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are a third party to the suit in O.S.No.27 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu. According to the petitioners, despite the property not being available for partition, as it was sold in the year 1950 and thereafter, the plaintiffs had formed a layout and sold to various innocent third party respondents buyers. The respondent 1 and 2/ plaintiffs by playing fraud upon the Court, had obtained decree behind the back of vitally interested parties, including the revision petitioners. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners also stated that since the vendor of the petitioners did not have any subsisting interest, they did not chose to contest the suit for partition. Admittedly, the petitioners were not parties to the suit. The mother of the petitioners purchased the property in the year 2000, subsequent to the preliminary decree passed on 12.02.1997. However, the purchase was before the final decree passed on 31.01.2008. In the light of the above, especially since it is contended by the petitioners that the property itself is not available for partition, I am inclined to grant leave to the petitioners and the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are ordered. 23-07-2026 vca https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP No. 18941 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 P.B.BALAJI, J. VCA To, The District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu. CMP No. 18941 and 18956 of 2026 in CRP SR.Nos.90897 and 101857 of 2026 23-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis