RAJENDHIRAN versus MUTHAIAMMAL @ MUTHAYEE & ORS.**

Citation: [2025] 4 S.C.R. 829 · Decided: 15-04-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 829 : 2025 INSC 508
Rajendhiran 
v. 
Muthaiammal @ Muthayee & Ors.**
(Miscellaneous Application No. 719 of 2025 
in 
Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2024)
15 April 2025
[Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains recall of judgment of this Court on the ground that 
the respondents in the appeals were not served.
Headnotes†
Suit – Matter pertaining to suit for declaration – Judgment/orders 
by this Court – Recall of judgment on the ground that the 
respondents in the appeal not served:
Held: In view of non-appearance of the parties for not being served, 
judgment is recalled. [Paras 1-2]
List of Keywords
Recall of judgment; Non-appearance of parties; Respondents not 
served.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Miscellaneous Application 
No. 719 of 2025
In
Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.01.2024 of the Supreme 
Court of India in CA No. 37 of 2024
* Author
** Ed Note: Judgment reported in Rajendhiran v. Muthaiammal @ Muthayee & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 37 of 
2024, dated 03.01.2024 was recalled. The appeal (Civil Appeal No.37/2024) is taken on board and is 
allowed in terms of the judgment dated 15 April 2025.
830
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
Adv. for the Applicant:
M.P. Parthiban, Ankur Prakash, Mrs. Priyanka Singh, Bilal Mansoor, 
Shreyas Kaushal, S. Geyolin Selvam, Alagiri K.
Adv. for the Non-Applicants:
M.A. Chinnasamy.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
1.	
This application is filed by the applicant(s)/respondent(s) seeking 
recall of judgment dated 03.01.2024 passed in the instant Civil Appeal 
on the ground that the respondents in the appeal were not served.
2.	
Having considered the grounds taken for non-appearance, we are of 
the view that the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the 
application is allowed and the judgment dated 03.01.2024 is recalled.
3.	
The appeal is taken on board.
4.	
Having heard both sides, we allow the Civil Appeal, in terms of the 
signed reportable judgment.
Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
This appeal, by the defendants, assails the correctness of the 
judgment and order dated 28.07.2022 of the High Court of Judicature 
at Madras whereby the Second Appeal No.351/2021 filed by the 
plaintiff was allowed and the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court 
and the Sub-Judge dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-respondents 
were set aside and the suit was decreed.
3.	
Facts in nutshell are :
3.1	 The respondent instituted a suit before the Munsiff Court, 
Tiruchengode registered as OS No.200/2011 claiming relief of 
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 
831
Rajendhiran v. Muthaiammal @ Muthayee & Ors.
declaration that the sale deed dated 10.02.2011 executed by 
the first defendant in favour of second defendant was null and 
void and to declare that suit property belonged to the plaintiffs 
and further for relief of an injunction against the defendants. 
3.2	 According to the plaint case, the property in question originally 
belonged to one Avinashi Gounder who had four sons namely, 
Arunachalam, Arumugam, Ramasamy and Palaniyappan. 
Plaintiff No.1 is the wife and plaintiff no.2 is the adopted 
son of Arunachalam. The first defendant is the daughter of 
Palaniyappan and the second defendant is the vendee of the 
suit property from defendant no.1.
3.3	 According to the plaintiffs, the four brothers had entered into 
an oral partition and the suit property came to the share of 
Arunachalam. Subsequently Arunachalam on 16.07.2003, had 
executed a will whereby the suit property and other properties 
belonging to Arunachalam were bequeathed in favour of the 
plaintiffs. Upon the death of Arunachalam on 30.04.2006, the 
plaintiffs became the absolute owners of the property in suit. 
Further case of the plaintiffs was that plaintiff no.2 and defendant 
no.2 were running a partnership business and the property in 
suit was offered as a security to the Karur Vysya Bank. It was 
the second defendant who had signed the loan papers and 
the security papers with the Bank. As the loan amount could 
not be repaid by defendant no.2, it was plaintiff no.2 who had 
cleared the outstanding loan of the Bank. Further it is claimed 
that defendant no.2 clandestinely obtained the sale deed on 
10.02.2011 in respect of the suit property from the first defendant. 
It was further the case of the plaintiff that the entire property 
which was allotted to Palaniyappan (father of defendan

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.