Madras HC Reaffirms Trial Court’s Decree in Case of Thimmaraya & Ors. V. Gowrammal

Must Read

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus....

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Follow us

A Civil Revision Petition was filed by three petitioners against the dismissal of their application on the file of the Sub-Judge, Hosur. The case was heard and decided upon by Hon’ble Justice P. Rajmanickam. 

Facts of the Case

The petitioners in the present case are brothers while the respondent is their sister. The respondent, Gowrammal, had filed a suit in 2008, on the file of the Sub-Judge, Hosur, for the relief of partition and separate possession.  During the pendency of this suit, the petitioners had filed an application seeking permission of the court for filing an additional written statement. The Trial Court had dismissed the said application. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners/ defendants 1 to 3 have filed the present Civil Revision Petition

Arguments Before the Court

The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent had filed a suit in 2008 claiming 1/5 the share in the suit properties based on the common compromise decree passed in 1996. Now, by virtue of the partition deed executed in 1968, between sons of Venkata Reddy and stepbrother Pilla Reddy, the respondent/plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the suit properties. 

It was further argued that the petitioners had filed a petition seeking permission of the court for filing an additional written statement. However, the Trial Court without giving due consideration went on to dismiss their petition. The Counsel also placed reliance upon the decision in Muthusamy Vs. Thangaraj

The Counsel for the respondent submitted that in the main written statement, the petitioners had categorically admitted that as per the compromise decree passed in 1996, the respondent and the petitioners were jointly allotted the properties. However, in the proposed additional written statement, the petitioners had denied the right of the respondent. 

The Counsel further submitted that since the petitioners had admitted the right of the respondent, they are estopped from denying the right of the respondent. Through an additional written statement, the petitioners are trying to withdraw the admission which was made by them in the original written statement and the same is not permissible. 

Court’s Observations

The Court observed that this was the second application seeking permission for filing additional written statements by the petitioners. Their earlier application was allowed and the plaintiff was examined as PW1. However, the petitioner herein did not turn up and hence an ex parte decree was passed. Thereafter, the petitioners had filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree, and the same was allowed. Thereafter, the suit was posted for cross-examination and then adjourned. The petitioners had gone on to transfer the said suit to the Additional District Judge and subsequently, the said Transfer O.P was dismissed, but they did not come forward to cross-examine the plaintiff’s side witness, and hence, they were again set ex parte. 

Several adjournments later, the petitioners have now filed an application seeking a second additional written statement. 

The Court noted that this was purely delaying/dragging tactics by the petitioners. The Court also observed that the Trial Court had ruled rightly by dismissing the said petition. 

Court’s Order

The Court did not find any irregularity or illegality in the said order. The Civil Revision Petition was therefore dismissed. 

Read the original judgment here.   


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there is no requirement of passing...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -