Parvathiammal Athilingam (late) v. R.Ananda Subramanian

1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 10.01.2011CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAMCIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.39 and 40 of 2011andMISCELLANEOUS PETITION Nos.1 and 1 of 20111.Parvathiammal Athilingam (late)

A.Selvakumar3.A.Puthuraja4.Devi Selvi5.Palani Selvi6.A.Chakravarthy7.Ponniruppasamy .. Petitioners in both CRPs. Vs.1.R.Ananda Subramanian2.R.Kuttisamy.. Respondents in both CRPs. Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the fair and decretal orders dated12.07.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.168 of 2009 in AppealSuit No.49 of 2009 and in Interlocutory Application No.167 of 2009 in Appeal Suit No.48 of 2009 by the Sub Court, Theni. For Petitioners: Ms.J.Padmaavathy Deviin both CRPs. For Respondent: Mr.Rajesh SaravananNo.1 in both CRPs.COMMON ORDERThe impugned orders dated 12.07.2010 passed in InterlocutoryApplication Nos.167 and 168 of 2009 in Appeal Suit Nos.48 and 49 of 2009by the Sub Court, Theni are being challenged in the present CivilRevision Petitions.2. The first respondent in Civil Revision Petition No.39 of 2011as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.216 of 2006 for the reliefs of declaration, recovery of possession and also for arrears of rent in the trial Court. The revision petitioners in Civil Revision PetitionNo.39 of 2011 as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No.194 of 2007for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction on the file of the trial Court. The trial Court after considering the available evidence on record has decreed the suit filed in Original Suit No.216 of2006 as prayed for and dismissed the suit filed in Original Suit No.194of 2007. Against the Judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.194 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2of 2007, Appeal Suit No.49 of 2009 and against the Judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.216 of 2006, Appeal Suit No.48 of 2009 have been preferred on the file of the first appellate Court.

During pendency of Appeal Suit Nos.48 and 49 of 2009, there vision petitioners as petitioners have filed Interlocutory ApplicationNos.167 and 168 of 2009 under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of CivilProcedure, 1908 praying to implead the proposed party mentioned therein in both the suits as one of the defendants. The first appellate Courtafter considering the rival contentions raised on either side has dismissed both the petitions. Against the order passed in InterlocutoryApplication No.168 of 2009, Civil Revision Petition No.39 of 2011 and against the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.167 of 2009,Civil Revision Petition No.40 of 2011 have been preferred.

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has strenuously contended that the plaintiffs in Original Suit No.194 of 2007have given Rs.15,000/- to the defendant therein for the purpose of purchasing the suit property and due to that an oral sale agreement has come into existence and subsequently it is learnt that the suit property has been allotted to the share of the proposed party viz., YuvarajKrishnan, who is none other than the brother of the first respondent in Civil Revision Petitions and in order to implead him as one of the defendants, these petitions have been filed, but the first appellateCourt without considering the contention urged on the side of there vision petitioners has erroneously dismissed the petitions filed in Interlocutory Application No.167 and 168 of 2009 and therefore the orders passed by the first appellate Court are liable to be interfered with.

The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has contended that in the plaint filed in original Suit No.194 of 2007, it has been clinchingly stated that the plaintiffs therein have entered into an oral sale agreement with the defendant therein for the purpose of purchasing the suit property and nowhere in the plaint filed in OriginalSuit No.194 of 2007, it has been stated about the role alleged to have been played by the proposed party viz., Yuvaraj Krishnan and the Courtbelow after considering all the contentions raised on either side has rightly dismissed Interlocutory Application Nos.167 and 168 of 2009 and therefore the orders passed by the Court below are not liable to be interfered with.

As enunciated earlier, Original Suit No.194 of 2007 has been instituted for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction mainly on the ground that the plaintiffs therein have advanced a sum ofRs.15,000/- to the defendant therein so as to purchase the suit property and thereby an oral sale agreement has come into existence between them. The first respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original SuitNo.216 of 2006 for the reliefs of declaration, recovery of possession and also for arrears of rent. The trial Court has decreed the suit filed in Original Suit No.216 of 2006 and dismissed the suit filed in OriginalSuit No.194 of 2007. During appellate stage, these petitions have been filed so as to implead the said proposed party viz., Yuvaraj Krishnan as one of the defendants in both the suits.

For the purpose of analysing the contentions raised on the side https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3of the revision petitioners, the Court has to look into paragraph No.4 of the plaint filed in Original Suit No.194 of 2007, wherein it has been clearly stated that prior to seventeen years, the plaintiffs have givenRs.15,000/- to the defendant and thereby an oral sale agreement has come into existence between them. In fact this Court has perused the entireaverments made in the plaint filed in Original Suit No.194 of 2007.Nowhere it has been stated about the role alleged to have been played by the proposed party viz., Yuvaraj Krishnan. Since there is no specific pleading in the plaint filed in Original Suit No.194 of 2007, the Courtcannot come to a conclusion that the proposed party is a necessary party for the purpose of deciding the reliefs sought for therein.

The Court below after considering all the contentions raised oneither side has rightly come to the conclusion that the proposed party is neither a necessary party nor a proper party so as to decide the liswhich exists between the parties. In view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any error or illegality in the orders passed by the Court below and altogether these Civil Revision Petitionsdeserve to be dismissed.