Dismissed

Kuppusamy v. Saruvamalai

Madras HC7 Mar 2019CRP/157/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging a trial court order denying the impleadment of a third party as a plaintiff. The court held that a subsequent purchase of a share during suit pendency does not entitle the buyer to step into the plaintiff's shoes or exercise their rights directly in the original suit.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was dismissed, and the trial court's order confirming the dismissal of the impleading application was upheld.

Kuppusamy Vs Saruvamalai — Partition | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.03.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

CRP PD NO.157 of 2009 and

¶7

M.P.No.1 of 2009
Kuppusamy ... Petitioner /third party
Vs.
1. Saruvamalai
2. Palanisamy ... Respondents 1 and 2/
plaintiffs
3. Marappan s/o Ramasamy
4. Marappan s/o Karuppa Gounder
5. Sengoda Gounder
6. Subramani
7. Karuppiah
8. Kandasamy (died) ... Respondents 3 to 8 /
defendants
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 227 of the
Constitution of India against the order dated 24.04.2008 passed in
I.A.No.1187 of 2007 in O.S.No.205 of 2000 by the District Munsif,

¶8

Thiruchengode.

¶9

For Revision Petitioner : Mr. P.Jagadesan For Respondents No.6 : Mr.P.Valliappan For Respondent No.1 to 3 and 5 and 7 : No appearance

¶10

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶11

ORDER

¶12

¶13

This revision petition has been filed as against the orders passed by the trial court dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner to implead him as one of the plaintiffs in the suit.

¶14

The revision petitioner is the third party in the original suit and the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for partition and injunction. The impleading petition has been filed on the ground that the revision petitioner had purchased 1/6th share of the suit property from the plaintiffs 1 and 2 through their power of attorney and hence he should be impleaded as plaintiff in the suit.

¶15

The trial court dismissed the application, against which, this revision has been filed.

¶16

Admittedly, the suit has been filed for partition among

¶17

the co-owners. The revision petitioner subsequently purchased certain shares of the property from one of the co-owners, during the pendency of the suit. Of course, there is no bar under law for such transfer of share in respect of the co-sharer. Merely on such purchase, the petitioner cannot come on record as one of the plaintiffs, stepping into the shoes of co-owner and accordingly what all the rights that accrue to him through his co-owner, he can work

¶18

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶19

¶20

out the same from the above sharer in the final decree proceedings. Hence, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the trial court and hence, the same does not warrant any interference by this court.

¶21

In the result, (i) The civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. The connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. (ii) The order of the trial court is confirmed. 07.03.2019 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No speaking/non speaking mst

¶22

To The District Munsif, Thiruchengode.

¶23

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶24

¶25

N.SATHISHKUMAR, J. mst

¶26

CRP PD No.157 of 2009 and
M.P.No.1 of 2009
07.03.2019

¶27

http://www.judis.nic.in

Kuppusamy v. Saruvamalai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuppusamy v. Saruvamalai

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

Charchaman Mosque Vs Dastagir

Kalavathi Vs K.M.Ahamadullah Basha

Vijay Home Appliances Ltd. Vs Life Insurance of India

M/S Ahamed Overseas Vs M/S Chino Trade Agency

M/S Savi Fabrics Vs K.Alagesan @ Kathamuthu

Syed Hussain Vs O.J.Lukose