Allowed

Dhanapathi v. Chinnappa Narankiyar

Madras HC8 Sept 2023CRP(MD)/1950/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, allowed a civil revision petition where the lower court erred in impleading an individual who admitted the disputed land belonged to the Government, merely seeking presence to protect villagers' rights rather than as a proper necessary party.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Court below allowing the impleading application is set aside. No order as to costs.

Dhanapathi Vs Chinnappa Narankiyar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD)No.1950 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 08.09.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

C.R.P.(MD)No.1950 of 2019 and C.M.P.(MD)No.9949 of 2019

¶7

1.Dhanapathi

¶8

2.Govindasamy

¶9

3.Umapathi ... Revision Petitioners/ Respondents/Appellants

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.Chinnappa Narankiyar 2.State Rep. by the

¶12

District Collector, Pudukkottai. ... Respondents / Petitioners/Respondents

¶13

Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order, dated 10.01.2019, passed in I.A. No.36 of 2017 in I.T.C.M.A.No.1 of 2007, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Gurusamy

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.M.Paranjothi for R1 : Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar Government Advocate for R2

¶16

1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

C.R.P.(MD)No.1950 of 2019

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 10.01.2019, passed in I.A. No.36 of 2017 in I.T.C.M.A.No.1 of 2007, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai.

¶20

The revision petitioners are the respondents/appellants and

¶21

the respondents herein are the petitioners / respondents before the Court below.

¶22

The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that he has moved the application under the Inam Abolition Act, in respect of certain property in Mootampatti Village, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai District. In which, one Chinnappa Narankiyar, who is the first respondent herein, has filed an application to implead him as a party to the said Appeal in I.T.C.M.A.No.1 of 2007. According to the said proposed party, the Government has not effectively contested the case and that the property which the petitioners sought for patta, is a Waterbody, therefore, unless he has been impleaded the right of the villagers, could not be protected.

¶23

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

C.R.P.(MD)No.1950 of 2019

¶25

The Court below has allowed the said application on the ground that the Government did not file any counter statement.

¶26

Aggrieved with the said order, the revision petitioners are before this Court by filing the instant Civil Revision Petition.

¶27

The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the first respondent is neither proper nor necessary party. It is settled principle of law that in any proceedings, the necessary party means the party without their presence, an order could not be passed effectively. In this case, admittedly, the land belongs to the Government. Though the first respondent says that the land does not belong to the Government, he himself categorically admitted in his petition that the land is a “Waterbody and Anathinam land”. Therefore, according to the said contention, he has no personal right over the property and he has filed only on the ground his presence will help the villagers.

¶28

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

C.R.P.(MD)No.1950 of 2019

¶30

But, this Court is not in a position to entertain the petition

¶31

on the ground that the property is allegedly vested with the Government and the Government alone is a necessary and proper party.

¶32

In view of the above ground, this Court could not find any justification in allowing the impleading application. Therefore, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order of the Court below.

¶33

In the result, the instant Civil Revision Petition stands

¶34

allowed and the order of the Court below is hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to cost. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶35

08.09.2023

¶36

NCC : Yes/No Index :Yes/No Ls

¶37

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

C.R.P.(MD)No.1950 of 2019

¶39

¶40

1.The Principal Subordinate Judge,

¶41

Pudukkottai.

¶42

2.The District Collector, Pudukkottai.

¶43

3.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶44

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

C.R.P.(MD)No.1950 of 2019

¶46

C.KUMARAPPAN.,J.

¶47

¶48

Order made in C.R.P(MD)No.1950 of 2019

¶49

08.09.2023

¶50

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Dhanapathi v. Chinnappa Narankiyar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanapathi v. Chinnappa Narankiyar

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

Arockia Rajeswari Vs Ragini Stellabai

Pandiyarajan Vs R.Ravi

Dhandeswara Ganapatigal Trust Vs Nil

Vijaya Baskar Alais M.Vasil Ahamed Vs J.Aneesh Sharmila

S.Deva Asir Vs R.G.Sudha Ramasamy

S.Sakila Selva Rani Vs P.Jayapandian