Authority: Madurai Bench of Madras High Court

Order Date: 09 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: 1) Kuttiraja, S/o Varaguna Ramapandia Chinnathambiar (age 62) and 2) C. Jawahar, S/o V. Chelladurai @ Thiru Arasu Pandian (age 72), filing Civil Miscellaneous Petitions C.M.P(MD)Nos.17081 and 17082 of 2024 respectively, seeking to be impleaded as 2nd and 3rd appellants in the first appeal A.S(MD)No.231 of 2023.
  • Respondents: 1) Balakumari Nachiyar (wife of Varagunarama Pandya Chinna Thambiyar) – 1st Respondent/Appellant; 2) P.K. Muthukrishna Raja (deceased); 3) P.K.M. Subramaniyan (son of the deceased); 4) P.K.M. Gurusamy (son of the deceased); 5) Chellaraniammal (wife of Ramavarma Pandya Rettiyar); 6) Tamil Nadu Real Estates (through its Managing Director Ispahani (deceased) / Keason); 7) Others (Jangan (deceased), Iswarya).
  • Underlying suit: Original suit O.S.No.299 of 1996 filed by the deceased plaintiffs for partition of a 2/6 share in the suit property, later transferred and renumbered as O.S.No.33 of 2004 in the Principal District & Sessions Court, Virudhunagar District, Srivilliputhur.
  • Parties in the original suit: Plaintiffs – P.K. Muthukrishna Raja (deceased), Subramaniyan, Pappammal (deceased), Gurusamy, Thilgam; Defendants – (1) Chellaraniammal (as representative of Varagunarama Pandya Chinna Thambiyar legal heirs), (2) M/s Tamil Nadu Real Estate (through Managing Director Ispahani), (3) Balakumari Nachiyar (3rd defendant, ex‑parte).
  • Trial Court judgment dated 16.03.2023 dismissed the suit on merits. The 3rd defendant (Balakumari Nachiyar) filed the first appeal A.S(MD)No.231 of 2023, which remains pending.
  • Petitioners claim to be legal heirs of Ramavarma Pandiya Chinnathambiyar and argue that the 1st defendant Chellaraniammal was improperly added as a representative, invoking Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC.
  • Petitioners rely on a prior High Court judgment reported in 1960 (2) MLJ 102, where shares of legal heirs were decided as 4/10, asserting that their share has already been determined.
  • The 5th respondent (Tamil Nadu Real Estate) contends that the petitioners have not produced any documentary evidence of heir status, that the original suit was already dismissed, and that the petitions are an attempt to protract proceedings.
  • Counsel for the petitioners is the same as counsel for the 1st respondent (Balakumari Nachiyar), raising a conflict of interest.
  • Ages of petitioners as per affidavits: 62 years (Kuttiraja) and 72 years (C. Jawahar).
  • The court noted that the 1st defendant was indeed impleaded as a representative of the legal heirs, and that the petitioners had knowledge of the suit proceedings but failed to act earlier.

Final Outcome

  • The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed both Civil Miscellaneous Petitions C.M.P(MD)Nos.17081 and 17082 of 2024, refusing to implead the petitioners as 2nd and 3rd appellants in the pending first appeal.

Topics: Civil Procedure, Heir Impleadment