Siva Rama Ganesh Vs S.Manickavasagam

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to allow this Civil Revision Petition and to set aside the impugned fair and decreetal order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Aruppukottai, in I.A.No.2 of 2020 in O.S.No.162 of 2018, dated 28.02.2022.

¶15

Page 1 of 9

¶16

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

¶17

C.R.P.(MD)No.1202 of 2025

¶18

For Petitioner :Mr.N.Dilip Kumar For R1 :Mr.S.Selva Aditya For R2 :Mr.V.Shathurthi Raja for Mr.S.Natesh Raaja *****

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Aruppukottai, in I.A.No.2 of 2020 in O.S.No.162 of 2018, dated 28.02.2022.

¶21

2.Heard Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner, Mr.S.Selva Aditya, learned Counsel for the first respondent and Mr.V.Shathurthi Raja, learned Counsel for the second respondent.

¶22

3.The first respondent herein has instituted a suit in O.S.No.162 of 2018 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai, for recovery of possession and for damages against the respondents 2 and 3. During the pendency of the said suit, the Revision Petitioner, who is a third party to the suit, has filed an interlocutory application under Order I Rule 10(2) and

¶23

________________ Page 2 of 9_

¶24

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

¶25

C.R.P.(MD)No.1202 of 2025

¶26

Section 151 CPC to implead himself as defendant in the suit. The learned Principal District Munsif, Aruppukottai, has dismissed the said application on the ground that the petitioner has not produced any valid document to prove that he is the bona fide owner of the suit property. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

¶27

4.Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the properties situated in S.Nos.14/1, 14/2, 14/3 and 14/4 and the first respondent/plaintiff has no right over the property in S.No.14/2 and in order to usurp the property in S.No.14/4, the first respondent has also filed another suit in O.S.No.110 of 2022 before the Subordinate Court, Aruppukottai, claiming that the property in S.No.14/4 is part of S.No.14/2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as there is an overlapping interest between the petitioner and the first respondent, which has to be adjudicated in both cases, the petitioner has filed the impleading application, which has been erroneously dismissed by the learned trial Judge.

¶28

________________ Page 3 of 9_

¶29

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

¶30

C.R.P.(MD)No.1202 of 2025

¶31

5.He also submitted that the first respondent has also filed an application before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur in Tr.O.P.No.95 of 2023 to transfer the suit in O.S.No.162 of 2018 from the file

¶32

of the Principal District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai to the Subordinate Court, Aruppukottai and to try along with the suit in O.S.No.110 of 2022. That application was allowed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur.

¶33

6.The learned Counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the rough sketch filed by the first respondent in O.S.No.110 of 2022 in which, it reflects four survey numbers, namely, S.Nos.14/1, 14/4, 14/2 and 14/3. The learned Counsel further submitted that the learned trial Judge without considering the settlement deed in favour of the petitioner, had erroneously held that no supporting document was produced by the petitioner to show that he is the owner of the suit property. He further submitted that the learned trial Judge has failed see that the petitioner is the bona fide purchaser of the major portion of the land in S.No.14 and the plaintiff/first respondent

¶34

________________ Page 4 of 9_

¶35

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

¶36

C.R.P.(MD)No.1202 of 2025

¶37

has only right over the extent of 1250 sq.ft., and he cannot claim more than

¶38

than, what he was purchased. Hence, he seeks interference of this Court.

¶39

Per contra , Mr.S.Selva Aditya, learned Counsel for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and that after considering the entire documents produced by the parties concerned in the interlocutory application, the learned trial Judge has rightly passed the impugned order, which needs no interference of this Court and hence, he seeks dismissal of this petition.

¶40

8.Mr.V.Shathurthi Raja, learned Counsel for the second respondent submitted that the second respondent has already vacated the premises and the suit property is a vacant law and they have no right over the property.

¶41

9.This Court considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶42

10.Admittedly, the first respondent herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.162

¶43

________________ Page 5 of 9_

¶44

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

¶45

C.R.P.(MD)No.1202 of 2025

¶46

of 2018, before Principal District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai, for recovery of possession and for damages against the respondents 2 and 3 and the application filed by the petitioner, who is a third party to the suit, to implead himself as defendant in the suit has been dismissed by the learned trial Judge on the ground that the petitioner has not produced any valid document to prove that he is the bona fide owner of the suit property.

¶47

11.From the perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner claims right over the property in S.Nos.14/1, 14/4, 14/2 and 14/3 and the first respondent claiming right over the property S.Nos.14/2 and 14/4, filed two separate suits with different reliefs. Further, the first respondent relied on a sale deed in Doc.No.812/1935, wherein, the extent mentioned is 49 1/2 x 50 1/2 sq.ft., which comes to 1237.5 sq.ft. The schedule mentioned in the sale deed is extracted hereunder:

¶48

",uhkehjGuk; b> mUg;Gf;Nfhl;il rg;b mUg;Gf;Nfhl;ilapy; tpUJefUf;F Nghfpw fpoNky; u];jhTf;F njd;Gwk; njd;tly; tPjp fPo; rufpd; A+dpad; gioaJf;F thu;L 3 GJ thu;L 13d; 1934 tU\k; [_d; khjk; 4e;Njjp jhq;fs; tifawh vOjpf;nfhz;l ghftp];jpg;gj;jpuk; 1.581.274.1048 / 1934 epu; j];jhNtrhf up[p];jupUs;sjpy; vq;fSila ghfj;jpUf;fpw;F fpilj;jpUf;fpw kid epyq;fSf;Fkhy; i\ njd;tly;

¶49

________________ Page 6 of 9_

¶50

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

¶51

C.R.P.(MD)No.1202 of 2025

¶52

tPjpf;Fk; fpof;F jq;fs; jikadhu; ehfypq;fehlhu; ghfkidf;F njw;F gdpnuz;L mb mfyKs;s ek; tifawh nrhe;j njd;tly; tPjpf;Fk; Nkw;F gjpdhW mb mfyKs;s ek; tifawh nrhe;j fpoNky; tPjpf;Fk; tlf;F ,jw;Fs;shd fpoNky; tlGwk; [hjpab 49 1/2 ehw;gj;njhd;gjiu njd;Gwk; [hjpab 49 ehw;gj;njhd;gJ njd;tly; Nky; [hjpab 50 1/2 Ik;gjiy fPo;Gwk; [hjpab 50 Ik;gJ msTs;s kid epyj;jpy; jq;fSf;F fpiuak; nra;tJ tlGwk; ghjpepyk;"

¶53

12.On a plain reading and comparison of suits in O.S.No.162 of 2018 and 110 of 2022 will make it clear that the suit schedule property in both the suits are one and the same. The dominus litis is with the plaintiff, who is the first respondent herein, to choose who should be made as a party to the lis . However, the Revision Petitioner has filed an application to himself as a party in the suit on the ground that he is the absolute owner of the suit property. Admittedly, in the suit instituted by the first respondent in O.S.No.110 of 2022, he himself has mentioned the S.No.14/2 is part of S.No.14/4, which according to the Revision Petitioner, he has right over the property and the person interested. Hence, this Court is of the view that the Revision Petition is the necessary and proper party to the suit.

¶54

________________ Page 7 of 9_

¶55

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

¶56

C.R.P.(MD)No.1202 of 2025

¶57

13.In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Aruppukottai, in I.A.No.2 of 2020 in O.S.No.162 of 2018, dated 28.02.2022, is set aside and the trial Court shall proceed with both the suits in O.S.Nos.162 of 2018 and 110 of 2022, as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶58

06.01.2026 Internet :Yes/No (1/2) NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No

¶59

cmr

¶60

To

¶61