Dismissed¶33

S.Ramasamy v. K.Kappinisamy

Madras HC19 Feb 2026CRP/3828/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Impleadment of pendente lite purchaser as second/additional plaintiff in pending suit for vacant possession; substitution versus impleadment of partial purchaser; life estate holder with vested remainder (son K.Arjun) sold portion on 30.01.2024; execution-stage complications; Article 227 revision against IV Additional District Munsif Court Coimbatore order dated 02.08.2024 in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.1555/2015; CRP 3828 of 2024 dismissed 19-02-2026.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; the Trial Court's impleadment order stands — civil revision petition dismissed, no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.No.21009 of 2024) closed. ¶33

S.Ramasamy Vs K.Kappinisamy — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the pendente lite purchaser (second respondent company) needs to be impleaded as an additional plaintiff in the pending suit, the petitioner contending that its impleadment is unnecessary. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

Having regard to the possessory relief sought, the pendente lite purchaser of a portion of the suit property is entitled to be impleaded as a party to the pending suit in order to avoid further complication at the time of execution; the objection that its impleadment was unnecessary is rejected.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

Since only a portion of the suit property was sold and the first respondent remains owner of the life estate in the unsold portion, the second respondent cannot be substituted as sole plaintiff; impleading it as second plaintiff is accordingly sustainable, and the petitioner's second objection is rejected.

¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (S. Sounthar, J.), 19-02-2026 — Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution dismissed. Plaintiff in O.S.No.1555/2015 (IV Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore), a life estate holder with vested remainder in his son, sold a portion of the suit property to the second respondent company on 30.01.2024 during the pendency of his suit for declaration of illegal occupancy and recovery of vacant possession. Held: (i) the pendente lite purchaser of a portion is entitled to be impleaded as a party to the pending possessory suit so as to avoid complications at execution; (ii) as the seller retained the life estate in the unsold portion, the purchaser cannot be substituted as sole plaintiff, so impleadment as second plaintiff is sustainable. Defendant's revision against the impleadment order dated 02.08.2024 dismissed; no costs; connected C.M.P.No.21009 of 2024 closed.

¶1

CRP No. 3828 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

¶6

C.R.P. No. 3828 of 2024

¶7

and C.M.P.No.21009 of 2024

¶8

S. Ramasamy S/o.late Samy, Madukkarai Thambi Thottam, Kalampayalam, Coimbatore – 641 010.

¶9

..Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

K. Kappinisamy S/o.P.M.Nanjappan, 2/28, Bharathyar Street, Kalampalayam, Coimbatore – 10. 2. M/s.Explicit Promoters & Agency (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised Signatory C.Ganesan Regd. Office: No.54, Mettupalayam Road, G.N.Mill Post, Coimbatore – 641 029.

¶12

M. Palaniammal W/o.late Mylsamy 4. M. Velusamy S/o. Late Mylsamy

¶13

..Respondent(s)

¶14

__________ Page1 of 5

¶15

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

¶16

CRP No. 3828 of 2024

¶17

Prayer: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 02.08.2024 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.1555/2015 on the file of the IV Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.

¶18

For Petitioner(s): Ms. Swetha. J. for Mr.K.Govi Ganesan

¶19

For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Abhijeet Krishna for M/s.V.Srikanth for R1 and R2

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court, allowing the application filed by the respondents 1 and 2 seeking impleadment of second respondent as second plaintiff in the suit.

¶22

The first respondent herein/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.1555 of 2015 against the petitioner/1st defendant and the respondents 3 and 4 herein/ 2^nd and 3^rd defendant seeking declaration that the petitioner is an illegal occupant of the suit property and for recovery of vacant possession of the property from the petitioner/first defendant. Pending suit, the first respondent herein/plaintiff, who holds a life estate with vested remainder with his son K.Arjun over the suit property, sold a portion of the suit property to the 2^nd respondent herein on 30.01.2024. Since the 2^nd respondent acquired right over a portion of the suit property, pending suit, instant application has been filed by him seeking

¶23

__________ Page2 of 5

¶24

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

¶25

CRP No. 3828 of 2024

¶26

permission to implead the company as second plaintiff in the suit. The Trial Court allowed the said application and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this court.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner/1st defendant would submit that the 2^nd respondent company herein is only a pendente lite purchaser and therefore, there is no necessity to implead it in the suit. It is further submitted by the counsel that even though as a purchaser, the 2^nd respondent can get itself substituted in the place of the original plaintiff, the application filed to implead the 2^nd respondent as second plaintiff in the suit is not legally sustainable.

¶28

The facts are not disputed. The first respondent is a life estate holder of the suit property and absolute estate is vested with his son. Both of them sold their right over a portion of the suit property to the 2^nd respondent. Therefore, 2^nd respondent is owner of the portion of the suit property purchased by him. The relief sought for in the suit is for a declaration that the petitioner/1st defendant is an illegal occupant and for recovery of vacant possession.

¶29

Page3 of 5

¶30

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

¶31

CRP No. 3828 of 2024

¶32

Having regard to the possessory relief sought for by the first respondent/plaintiff, this court feels that the 2^nd respondent, who is the pendente lite purchaser is entitled to implead itself as a party in the suit in order to avoid further complication at the time of execution. Therefore, even as per the case of the petitioner, only a portion of the suit property was sold to the 2^nd respondent and the first respondent remains owner of the life estate in respect of of the unsold portion. In such circumstances, the 2^nd respondent cannot substitute the first respondent as sole plaintiff. Hence, the second objection raised by the petitioner is also rejected.

¶33