Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2633 (MAD)

Manonmani v. Latha & Another

2006-09-29

R.BANUMATHI

body2006
Judgment :- (Prayer:- Revision filed to call for the records relating to the order dated 20.10.2002 in I.A.No.80 of 2001 in O.S.No.7 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif, Perambalur and set aside the same and allow the above C.R.P.) This revision is directed against the order of the District Munsif, Perambalur made in I.A.No.80 of 2001 in O.S.No.7 of 2001 dated 20.10.2002, allowing the Petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. 2. Mother is pitted against the daughter as to the enjoyment of the Suit properties. Interpretation of the terms of the Settlement Deed dated 27.04.1965 and whether Rajangam was in possession and enjoyment of the Suit properties are the points in dispute between the parties. 3. Relevant facts for disposal of this Civil Revision Petition could briefly stated thus:- Plaintiff and the Defendant are the first and second wife of late Rajangam. The marriage between the Plaintiff and the Rajangam was dissolved in the matrimonial proceedings before the Subordinate Court, Trichy. The suit properties belonged to Muthuveerarama Reddiyar, who is the father of the Plaintiff. The said Muthuveerarama Reddiyar had settled the suit properties in favour of the Plaintiff and her husband Rajangam by the Settlement Deed dated 27.04.1965. The case of the Plaintiff is that as per the terms of the Settlement Deed, the suit properties will devolve upon either of the survivor of the donee. Hence it is the contention of the Plaintiff that after the death of Rajangam in 1992, the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and patta was also granted in her favour and hence, she has filed the Suit for Permanent Injunction. 4. Strongly opposing the Suit, the Defendant who is the second wife of Rajangam is contesting the Suit contending that Latha daughter of Rajangam and his first wife viz., Plaintiff is a necessary party to the Suit. According to the Defendant, after the Plaintiff has left the company of Rajangam, Rajangam was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the Suit property and that the Plaintiff was excluded from the possession. In the Written Statement it is alleged that the Plaintiff had fraudulently obtained the patta behind the back of the Defendant and Latha. 5. The Written Statement was filed in January 2001. In the Written Statement it is alleged that the Plaintiff had fraudulently obtained the patta behind the back of the Defendant and Latha. 5. The Written Statement was filed in January 2001. Within few months in June 2001, Latha, who is the daughter of the Plaintiff and Rajangam, had filed I.A.No.80 of 2001 in O.S.No.7 of 2001 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. to implead her as a Defendant in the Suit. The Plaintiff has resisted the application. 6. The Trial Court allowed the Application on the ground that for complete and effective adjudication between the parties, proposed party Latha is a necessary party. The learned District Munsif was also of the view that to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings and to save judicial time, the proposed party is to be impleaded as a party. 7. It is not disputed that the proposed party Latha is the daughter of the Plaintiff Manonmani and Rajangam. It is also not disputed that the marriage between the Plaintiff and Rajangam were dissolved by the Decree of Divorce granted in 1981. 8. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that in terms of the Settlement Deed, after the death of Rajangam, the suit property would naturally go to the Plaintiff and Rajangam did not have any right to execute Will in favour of his daughter. The proposed party has submitted that in consideration of the nature of dispute between the parties, the Trial Court has rightly allowed the impleading petition for complete and effective adjudication. 9. Admittedly, the suit properties originally belonged to Muthuveerarama Reddiyar who has settled the property in favour the Plaintiff and her husband Rajangam by Settlement Deed dated 27.04.1965. The Plaintiff contends that after the death of Rajangam, as survivor donee she alone is entitled to the property. The Plaintiff's case is seriously disputed by the proposed party Latha [who is the daughter of the Plaintiff and Rajangam], contending that after the Plaintiff had left the company of Rajangam, Rajangam was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the Suit properties and that he has also let out the suit property. The proposed party has also alleged that the Plaintiff has obtained patta behind her back and challenging the same, she has preferred an appeal before the Revenue Authorities. The proposed party has also alleged that the Plaintiff has obtained patta behind her back and challenging the same, she has preferred an appeal before the Revenue Authorities. The case of the proposed party is that her father Rajangam had executed a Will dated 02.01.1992, bequeathing the Suit properties in her favour and that she is entitled to the suit properties. 10. By a careful consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, it is seen that (i) interpretation of terms of Settlement Deed ; (ii) who has been in possession of the suit property; (iii) whether the Plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property or whether she was excluded from the suit properties; and (iv) whether Rajangam had a right to execute the Will bequeathing the suit properties to his daughter Latha are some of the contentious issues arising in the Suit. Those contentious issues could effectively be adjudicated only in the presence of the proposed party Latha. Without impleading Latha, the above said issues cannot be completely and effectively be adjudicated. 11. The averments in the Suit and the pleadings raised reveal that direct interest of Latha is involved in the subject matter of the litigation. The determination of the Suit would affect the rights of Latha and hence she is a necessary party to the Suit. 12. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the challenge to the issuance of Patta cannot confer any right upon the proposed party to get herself impleaded in the Suit. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the Respondents, for complete and effective adjudication of the issues, the proposed party Latha is very much necessary. In consideration of the pleadings and the contentious points raised by the parties, the Trial Court has rightly held that Latha is a necessary and proper party. 13. The impugned order does not suffer from any serious infirmity, warranting interference, exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The order of the District Munsif, Perambalur made in I.A.No.80 of 2001 in O.S.No.7 of 2001, dated 20.10.2002, is confirmed and the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P. is closed.