Allowed

K.S.Deeparani v. Nallathambi

Madras HC14 Oct 2022CRP/1502/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petitioners who purchased property pendency suit with set aside decree sought impleadment as defendants. High Court allowed revision, setting aside impugned dismissal order to facilitate parties and prevent multiplicity of proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; order in IA No. 57 of 2008 set aside; liberty granted to parties to submit submissions; trial court directed to dispose case within 6 months.

K.S.Deeparani Vs Nallathambi — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

C.R.P. No. 1502 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14.10.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

C.R.P.No.1502 of 2019

¶7

and

¶8

C.M.P. No. 9825 of 2019

¶9

K.S. Deeparani,

¶10

D/o. K.S.Srinivasan

¶11

K.S.Rajkumar,

¶12

S/o. K.S. Srinivasan ... Petitioners

¶13

Vs.

¶14

Nallathambi,

¶15

S/o. Chinnapaiya Gounder

¶16

Eswaran,

¶17

S/o. Subramani

¶18

Punitha, W/o. Eswaran

¶19

Murugesan, S/o. Kali

¶20

... Respondents

¶21

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Art. 227 of Constitution of

¶22

India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 30.08.2018 in

¶23

1/5

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

C.R.P. No. 1502 of 2019

¶26

I.A.No.757 of 2018 in O.S.No. 619 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem.

¶27

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Selvaraj For Respondents : R1 – Insufficient address

¶28

R2 to R4 – No appearance

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

The revision petitioners are the third parties in the Interlocutary Application in I.A.No. 757 of 2018, which was filed by them under Order 1 Rule 10 and Sec.151 of C.P.C. to implead them as defendants 4 and 5 in the suit in O.S.No.619 of 2008 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Salem filed by the 1^st respondent/plaintiff for the relief of declaration and other consequential relief against the defendants 1 to 3 with regard to cancellation of sale deed.

¶31

During the pendency of the suit proceedings, the defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte and exparte decree was granted in favour of 1^st respondent/plaintiff. After that, one Erusa Gounder purchased the property from the plaintiff, from whom, the petitioners purchased the property on 24.05.2011. Now, the petitioners came to know that exparte decree was set

¶32

2/5

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

C.R.P. No. 1502 of 2019

¶35

aside in I.A.No. 1455 of 2013 and the suit is riped for trial. But, as on date, these revision petitioners are owners of the property. So, they want to implead themselves as defendants in the suit. Hence, they have filed an Interlocutary Application in I.A.No. 757 of 2018 to implead them, but the same was dismissed by the trial court on merits stating that during the pendency of the suit, there is no necessity to implead them, because the cause of action arose much prior to the purchase. Aggrieved over the said findings, the proposed parties filed this Civil Revision Petition.

¶36

Today, when the matter taken up for hearing, there is no representation on the side of respondents. The learned counsel for Revision Petitioners submitted that they have purchased an extent of 15.5 cents in Survey No.90/1 out of 17 cents, which is first item of suit property. Though they have purchased the property during the pendency of suit proceedings, at that time, the suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff, now the said exparte decree is set aside and the suit is riped for trial. So, to protect their right over the property, they wanted to implead themselves as defendants in the suit. Hence, they prayed to allow this Civil Revision Petition.

¶37

3/5

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

C.R.P. No. 1502 of 2019

¶40

Admittedly, during the pendency of suit proceedings, they have purchased the property in the year 2011. According to proposed purchasers, after the exparte decree, they have purchased the property. But, anyhow, as per the sale deed, they are claiming right in respect the first item of suit property. If they are not given any chance to proceed with the trial, it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings. So, to avoid the same, this Court is inclined to set aside the order passed by the trial court in I.A.No. 57 of 2008 and necessary amendment in the cause title is to be carried out. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. However, liberty is granted to both parties to submit their submissions. Thereafter, the trial court is directed to dispose of the case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.

¶41

14.10.2022

¶42

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking/Non-speaking order rpp To Principal District Munsif, Salem.

¶43

4/5

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

C.R.P. No. 1502 of 2019

¶46

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶47

rpp

¶48

C.R.P.No.1502 of 2019

¶49

14.10.2022

¶50

5/5

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

K.S.Deeparani v. Nallathambi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S.Deeparani v. Nallathambi

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

P.Madheswaran Vs M/S.Margadarasi Chits Pvt. Ltd.

B.Sumithra Vs G.Sukumaran

Palani Vs Sadhasivam

Mr. Veerasamy Vs Mrs. Rani

T.R.Govindan(Died) Vs K.Ganesan

K.R.Jeyasundar M.Raj Vs C.Daniel