- (1.)THIS civil revision petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 18.4.2013 passed in I.A.No.294 of 2009 in O.S.No.34 of 2009 on the file of District Court, Sivagangai.
(2.)THE petitioners are the defendants 3 and 4, whereas the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.34 of 2009 on the file of District Court, Sivagangai. The respondent filed the suit for a preliminary decree declaring that respondent is entitled to 1/10th share in suit scheduled property and to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for dividing the suit property by metes and bounds as per the final decree based on the report of the Advocate Commissioner.
(3.)THE sixth defendant in the suit filed written statement. The petitioners filed I.A.No.294 of 2009 for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C on the ground that the said suit is barred by limitation as per the provisions of Companies Act. According to the petitioners, all the properties belong to the private limited companies which are separate legal entity. Without winding up of the company, a person is not entitled to claim share in the properties. Secondly, the petitioners contended that alternatively the respondent can claim partition in the Company Law Board.
The respondent in his counter stated that all the properties standing in the names of Private Limited Companies were purchased by the grand father and all the properties belong to joint families. The grandfather floated the companies and the properties retained the character of joint family properties. The respondent is not claiming any right under the provisions of Companies Act. The claim of respondent is civil right and O.S.No. 34 of 2009 filed by the respondent is a civil proceedings. Hence, the suit is maintainable and not barred by provisions of Companies Act.