CMP/7643/2025 of P.RAVI Vs KALYANI

CMP No. 7643 of 2025 __________ Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR CMP No. 7643 of 2025 in AS SR.No.164580 of 2024 P.Ravi ..Appellant(s) Vs 1. Kalyani 2. Jansi Rani 3. Renuka Devi 4. Shakilal 5. Sarala 6. Ammu Devi 7. P.Vittobai 8. The Sub Registrar Sub Registrar Office, Poonamallee. 9. The Sub Registrar Sub Registrar Office, Avadi 10.The Sub Registrar Sub Registrar Office, Thiruvalangadu, Tiruthani Taluk ..Respondent(s) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP No. 7643 of 2025 __________ Page2 of 5 PRAYER IN CMP No. 7643 of 2025: To condone the delay of 311 days in filing appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 26.09.2023 made in OS No.403 of 2022, on the file of the Learned I Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur. PRAYER IN AS SR.No.164580 of 2024: Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure r/w Or.43 C.P.C. to set aside the judgment and dec ree of the learned I Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur passed in OS N o.403 of 2022 dated 26.09.2023. For Appellant(s): Mr.Manoj Sreevalsan For Respondent(s): R1 & R2 – No appearance Mr.K.M.Gokulesh For R3 & R7 R4 to R6 Not ready in notice Mr.G.Nanmaran Special Govt Pleader for R8 to R10 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan J.) The first defendant in OS No.403 of 2022, on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur, had filed the present petition seeking t o condone the delay of 311 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2023. 2.The said suit in OS No.403 of 2022 had been filed by the first and second respondents/plaintiffs seeking undivided 1/8th share in the suit proper ty. The petitioner herein remained ex-parte. He did not even file his written statement. The other defendants had paid the Court fees. In the decree, the plaintiffs were granted 1/8 th undivided share and the 3-5 defendants were also https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP No. 7643 of 2025 __________ Page3 of 5 held entitled to 1/8th share for the decree of partition and they were also permitted to initiate separate proceedings for passing final decree. The petitioner had claimed that since he remained ex-parte, he had filed an application seeking to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree and that was returned by the Trial Court holding that the other defendants had contest ed the suit and the judgment was passed on merits and that the only remedy available was to file an appeal. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in that process, there had been a delay. But, a perusal of the affidavit shows that the judgm ent and decree was dated 26.09.2023 and the petitioner herein had applied for the certified copies of the judgment and decree on 19.10.2023, which was made ready on 22.11.2023. Thereafter, he had filed an application to set a side the judgment and decree. That came to be returned on the ground that only an appeal should be filed. It was returned on 15.02.2024 and again on 14.06.2024. 4.On and from 14.06.2024 when the petitioner should have filed the present appeal, the appeal had been filed only on 03.12.2024. There has been a delay of six months on and from the date of the last return. Even ot herwise, a perusal of the merits of the case shows that the petitioner herein i s entitled to an undivided 1/8th shares along with his sisters. His claim is that he had spent money to marry his sisters and then got married only in the year 1995 and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP No. 7643 of 2025 __________ Page4 of 5 thereafter, in the year 1996 married the last sister. He ther efore claimed that since he had spent money on their marriages, they are not entitled for share in the property. This argument cannot hold water since, by birth and the progression in law, daughters in the family have a right and share in the property. That share cannot be denied merely because the petitioner c laims to have spent money on their marriage. The petitioner cannot deny the ri ght of their shares in the property. 5.We are not convinced either with the reasons stated to condone the delay nor does the petitioner has any case on merits. The petition stands dismissed and the Appeal stands rejected at the SR stage. (C.V.K.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 20-04-2026 sli To 1.The I Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur. 2.The Sub Registrar Sub Registrar Office, Poonamallee. 3. The Sub Registrar Sub Registrar Office, Avadi. 4.The Sub Registrar Sub Registrar Office, Thiruvalangadu, Tiruthani Taluk. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP No. 7643 of 2025 __________ Page5 of 5 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J. AND K.RAJASEKAR, J. SLI CMP No. 7643 of 2025 in AS SR.No.164580 of 2024 20-04-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis