Dismissed

R.Kannan v. T.Kannan

Madras HC11 Feb 2015CRP(MD)/174/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madurai Bench dismissed a civil revision and miscellaneous petition challenging a trial court's dismissal of an application to implead third parties. The High Court held that in a bare injunction suit, where title claims arise from a deed executed after the suit, the proposed party is not necessary for adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition and connected Miscellaneous Petition dismissed; no costs awarded.

R.Kannan Vs T.Kannan — Property and Title | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 11.02.2015

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

¶6

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.174 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015

¶7

R.Kannan

¶8

R.Dhanabalan ..Petitioners/Petitioners/Proposed Respondents Vs.

¶9

T.Kannan ... Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff

¶10

Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to call for the records pertaining to the fair and decreetal order dated 18.09.2014 passed in I.A.No.282 of 2014 in O.S.No.446 of 2010, on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil and set aside the same.

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr.B.Tamilnidhi

¶12

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The third parties, who wanted to implead themselves in a suit for injunction, are the revision petitioners.

¶15

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.

¶16

The suit was filed by the plaintiff for bare injunction, restraining the defendant from encumbering, alienating the property and also disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. The revision petitioners are the sons of the defendant and therefore claiming right to the property under the settlement deed dated 15.03.2013, which is subsequent to the filing of the suit. The petitioners wanted to implead themselves in the suit based on the said settlement deed executed by the first defendant. According to them, the first defendant, who is the mother, is aged above 80 years and she is not in a position to conduct the case. However, the application was dismissed by the trial Court, on the ground that the suit is for bare injunction and only the factum of possession has been gone into and the presence of the petitioners is not necessary.

¶17

Unless the Court feels that the proposed parties are necessary parties for deciding the dispute between the parties, they need not be impleaded. Admittedly, the suit is one for injunction. Secondly, the proposed parties are claiming title only based on the settlement deed, which has come into force, only after the filing of the suit. Therefore, even without the presence of the petitioners herein, the dispute between the parties can be adjudicated by the trial Court. Hence, the trial https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court has rightly dismissed the application. There is no error of jurisdiction or infirmity for any interference.

¶18

¶19

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. No costs.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(Writs)

¶22

/True copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

The I Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil.

¶26

+1cc to Mr.B.Tamilnidhi, Advocate in SR.6338

¶27

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.174 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015

¶28

11.02.2015

¶29

ssl

¶30

pbk 19/02/2015 ::2p-3c:

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R.Kannan v. T.Kannan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Kannan v. T.Kannan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sathish Kumar, Vs Subbiah

Suganthi Baby Vs P.Veeranan (Died)

E.Sankaran Vs Ramalakshmi

Subba Reddiar, Vs P.Stalin Aruldass

Mr.K.R.K. Vellaiyan Vs Mr.C.T.S. Chidambaram Chettiar

Annamali Vs Raja Kannappan