Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 4200 (MAD)

A. Marappan v. Valliammal & Another

2008-11-14

M.VENUGOPAL

body2008
Judgment :- The civil revision petitioner/first respondent/plaintiff has filed this civil revision petition aggrieved against the order dated 26.02.2008 in I.A.No.1078 of 2005 in O.S.No.236 of 2005 passed by the District Munsif Court, Avinashi in allowing the application filed by the first respondent/petitioner/proposed party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code. 2. The trial Court, while allowing the application I.A.No.1078 of 2005, has inter alia observed that the first respondent herein has disputed the absolute ownership of the revision petitioner/plaintiff and that the first respondent/proposed party has created clouds over the title of the revision petitioner/plaintiff and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings has resultantly allowed the application without costs. 3. Admittedly, the suit O.S.No.236 of 2005 has been filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff praying for a relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, servants, agents relatives and anybody claiming under him from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. In I.A.No.1078 of 2005, the first respondent herein has claimed the suit property by means of a Will dated 211. 2004 and as per the said Will she has a right along with a sister Santhamani and since her mother has expired, these properties are in her possession and enjoyment4. and therefore, she must be impleaded as a necessary and proper party in the case. 4. Inasmuch as the revision petitioner/plaintiff has filed only a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.236 of 2005 on the file of District Munsif Court, Avinashi and since the first respondent/proposed party claims right through Will dated 211. 2004 executed by her mother to herself and to her sister Santhamani, this Court is of the considered view that the first respondent is not a necessary and property party to the case and even in her absence, the issues/disputes in the suit can be settled in a comprehensive way and in that view of the matter, this Court sitting in revision interferes with the order passed by the trial Court in allowing the IA and accordingly, set aside the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.1078 of 2005 dated 26.02.2008 and resultantly, allows the civil revision petition to prevent aberration of justice. 5. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.1078 of 2005 is set aside. 5. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.1078 of 2005 is set aside. Since the suit pertains only to the relief of permanent injunction and since this Court has been informed that written statement has been filed, the trial Court is directed to frame necessary issues in the suit and to dispose of the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.