Libertatem Magazine

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

Contents of this Page

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. 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.

About the Author