Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 4376 (MAD)

K. S. Govindarajan v. S. Prabhakaran

2008-11-25

S.PALANIVELU

body2008
Judgment :- In view of the inter-connectivity of the facts, a common order is being passed. 2. The petitioners are third parties to the suit. O.S.No.219 of 2007 has been instituted by the plaintiff for himself and on behalf his brother by name Mohan against the defendants for permanent injunction with respect to certain buildings in Chinnakaliyamputthur. The petitioners herein filed applications in I.A.Nos.1069 of 2007 and 1070 of 2007 to implead themselves in I.A.No.555 of 2007 in O.S.No.219 of 2007 respectively. 3. In the affidavit, they have affirmed that they are State Vice President and Organising Secretary respectively in INTUC and the workers employed in most of the textile mills in the State are members in INTUC and I.N.C. (Indian National Congress) functioning under INTUC and the properties registered in the names of INTUC are maintained by the said organisation with the help of office bearers and the workers concerned in various places. 4. The suit property was purchased by the funds raised from obtaining donations belonging to the INTUC which is meant for taking rest for the employees, to impart training and to convene meetings. The suit property does not belong to anybody else in individual capacity. The property tax for the building is being assessed in the name of INTUC. While the facts are so, the plaintiff paid the property tax as if the property belongs to him and in case of their being impleaded in the suit, they would establish that they have got right over the property. 4. In the counter filed by the first respondent, he has denied the allegations and that the pleadings in the plaint are reiterated by stating that the property is in his possession. 5. The learned District Munsif, Palani has dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioners have not shown, who they are and what is their role in the affairs relating to the suit property, that they have not produced any records to show the above said aspects, that it is alleged that the V.K.Mills Workers, for INTUC have secured the building which is under their maintenance, no reason has been shown that why the persons connected to the suit property have not been shown as parties and that if so desired, the proposed parties may institute a fresh suit. 6. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that even in the plaint it has been alleged that the property containing the suit building has been subdivided as S.No.116/20 and patta No.258 has also been issued in the name of Workers Union of INTUC. It is his further contention that the said pleading was specifically denied in the counter filed by the defendants filed by them in I.A.No.555 of 2007, which goes to the effect that the suit buildings belong to INTUC and they have been in possession of the property by payment of house tax etc for over statutory period. It is his contention that since both the parties to the suit have specifically admitted that these petitioners are closely related to the suit building, there is no obstacle for the Court to implead them in the suit. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the other side cannot take recourse to the pleadings in the plaint that they are the third parties to the suit and even though they are holding some positions in INTUC, they cannot seek relief of impleadment of themselves in the suit and if they desire, they have to file a fresh suit, portraying cause of action. 8. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1998 II CTC 470, (Dr.S.Kameswaran Vs. A.Jayaraman and another) in which the learned Judges after referring to an earlier decision of this Court reported in 1950 (1) MLJ 521 , (Duraiswami Goundan V. subramanian Mudaliar), concluded that if so advised, the appellant may examine the proposed party as a witness. But so long as the action is pointed against the defendant No.1, the party against whom no cause of action is alleged cannot be allowed to be impleaded as an additional party defendant to the suit. He also garnered support from another decision of this Court reported in 1998 (I) CTC 626 , (Somasundaram Chettiar and others Vs. Balasubramanian) wherein the learned Judge has observed as follows: “10.It is settled law that the plaintiff may chose to implead only those persons as defendants against whom he wishes to proceed with. He also garnered support from another decision of this Court reported in 1998 (I) CTC 626 , (Somasundaram Chettiar and others Vs. Balasubramanian) wherein the learned Judge has observed as follows: “10.It is settled law that the plaintiff may chose to implead only those persons as defendants against whom he wishes to proceed with. However, it is open to the Court to add, at any stage of the suit, a necessary party in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon the questions involved in the suit. Thus, the question of impleadment of party has to be decided under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C which provides that only a necessary or propery party may be added.” 9. Gaining strength from the above said decisions, the learned counsel for the respondent would argue that there is no cause of action against the proposed parties and if the parties to the suit desire, there is likelihood for them to examine them witnesses in the suit and they have no locus standi to enter into the suit. 10. After going through the principles set out in the above decisions, this Court has gone carefully into the pleadings in the plaint to see whether any cause of action transpires as against these petitioners. 11. It is stated in the plaint that originally the suit land belonged to one Lakshmana Samy who constructed certain buildings and donated the same to the Panchayat. In the remaining property, he put up another building which was exclusively belonging to him and the said Lakshmana Samy engaged in welfare activities. While so, it is stated that one Vijaya Mills was functioning opposite to the suit property belonging to Lakshmana Samy. He floated an organisation with the people working in Vijayakumar Mill, by name “Palani National Spinning Mill Workers’ Union. He himself was the President of the said organisation. He also launched a Trust by name Indira Bhavan Security Trust and he was the Managing Trustee for it and the office of the Trust was functioning the said property. 11.(i) It is his further pleading in the plaint that after the death of Lakshmana Samy on 28.11.2006, the plaintiff and his brother Mohan inherited the property and they are in possession. 11.(i) It is his further pleading in the plaint that after the death of Lakshmana Samy on 28.11.2006, the plaintiff and his brother Mohan inherited the property and they are in possession. The property has been subdivided as Survey No.116/20 and patta has also been issued under Patta No.258 in the name of INTUC Mill Workers Union and that taking advantage of the presence of the name of the President INTUC Mill Workers Union in the patta for the property, the defendants are attempting to trespass to the property. 12. Going by the above said pleadings in the plaint, it is candid that the cause of action has arisen as against the individuals who are holding responsible positions in the organisation. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the defendants are members of INTUC and in the guise of impleading them, the plaintiff is attempting to grab at the property which belonged to the INTUC. 13. This Court has found out that necessary cause of action is very much available in the plaint so as to entertain the petition by the petitioners to implead them as parties to the suit. 14. If the principles and guidelines formulated in the above said decisions are considered, the plaint allegations would satisfy those requirements and hence, there is no stumbling block for the Court to conclude that the petitioners are necessary parties to the suit. It is also observed that without their presence and participation in the suit, no final or effective adjudication in the suit could be secured. In such view of this matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have to be impleaded in the suit. The impugned order passed by the Court below is set aside. 15. In fine, both the civil revision petitions are allowed. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. No