The Madras High Court revised an order impleading subsequent purchasers as parties in a suit for specific performance. It held that pendente lite purchasers are not necessary parties per Kasturi case to prevent scope enlargement.
Civil Revision Petition allowed; Impugned order quashed; Connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P.(MD).No.19 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.19 of 2019 and
C.M.P(MD) No.89 of 2019
M.Jeyabose ... Petitioner/1st Respondent/ 1st Respondent/Plaintiff -vs1. G.Subramania Pillai ... 1st Respondent/Petitioner/Petitioner/ Defendant 2. P.Thangapandy Nadar 3. T.S.Mani Nadar 4. Muniyandi Pillai 5. Murugan ... Respondents 2 to 5/Respondents 2 &5 Proposed Party (Respondents 4 and 5 are given up in this C.R.P)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 10.09.2018 passed in I.A.No.44 of 2017 in I.A.No.43 of 2017 in O.S.No.46 of 2017, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchendur.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Alex Benny Hook for Mrs.Jessi Jeeva Priya
1/6
C.R.P.(MD).No.19 of 2019
For Respondents : No appearance – for R1 and R3 : dismissed for default – for R2 : Given up – for R4 and R5
O R D E R
The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 10.09.2018 passed in I.A.No.44 of 2017 in I.A.No.43 of 2017 in O.S.No.46 of 2017, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchendur.
2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff before the Court below.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per the
litigative status before the trial Court.
2/6
C.R.P.(MD).No.19 of 2019
ordering of the said application, the defendant has filed impleading application to implead the respondents 2 to 5 being the subsequent purchasers of the suit property.
learned counsel for the petitioner.
3/6
C.R.P.(MD).No.19 of 2019
8. From the perusal of the records, it is apparent that the suit was instituted during the year 2010 and as per the order passed in the impleading application in I.A.No.44 of 2017, dated 10.09.2018, which is impugned in this revision petition, the alleged sale transaction in favour of the respondents 2 and 3 took place on 29.12.2011 and 31.01.2012, qua, after the filing of the suit. Therefore, it is apparent that the respondents 2 and 3 are pendente lite purchasers. Therefore, by referring the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Civil Appeal No.2831 of 2005 (Kasturi Vs.Iyyamperumal and others) dated 25.04.2005, this Court is of the view that the pendente lite purchasers are not necessary party in the suit for specific performance. If pendente lite purchasers are impleaded then there is a every possibility that the scope of the suit would be enlarged. Therefore, the order passed by the Court below is contrary to the settled principle of law. Hence, this Court has got a reason to interfere with the order of the learned trial judge.
C.R.P.(MD).No.19 of 2019
9. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed . There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
07.08.2023
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ebsi
To 1. The Subordinate Judge, Tiruchendur.
C.R.P.(MD).No.19 of 2019
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
ebsi
C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.19 of 2019
07.08.2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether subsequent purchasers in the year pending suit are necessary proper parties in a suit for specific performance.
Whether the order impleading pendente lite purchasers is contrary to settled principles of law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Civil Appeal No.2831 of 2005 (Kasturi Vs.Iyyamperumal and others)Distinguished¶34
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M.Jeyabose
G.Subramania Pillai
P.Thangapandy Nadar
T.S.Mani Nadar
Muniyandi Pillai
Murugan
C.KUMARAPPAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
