Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 69 (MAD)

Saroja & Another v. V. Nagarajan & Others

2009-01-07

G.RAJASURIA

body2009
Judgment :- Animadverting upon the order dated 17.06.2008 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri in I.A.No.275 of 2007 in O.S.No.55 of 2000, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this revision as stood exposited from the records as well as the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners could succinctly and precisely be set out thus: The revision petitioners herein, filed O.S.No.55 of 2000 for specific performance of the agreement to sell, which emerged between the plaintiff and deceased D1. During the pendency of the suit D1 died whereupon his legal heirs were impleaded. Quite antithetical to what the deceased defendant committed himself in black and white in the form of written statement, his legal heirs wanted to file an additional written statement as though the very subject matter of the suit did not belong to the deceased D1, but, it belonged to somebody else and accordingly, they filed I.A.No.275 of 2007 for filing such additional written statement and it was allowed. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such allowing of the interim application, the present civil revision petition is filed on various grounds. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Though notice has been served on the respondents, no one represented. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners, placing reliance on the grounds of revision would develop his argument to the effect that absolutely there is no rhyme or reason on the part of the legal heirs of the deceased original defendant to contend as though the suit property itself did not belong to the original defendant but it belonged to somebody else. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs would appropriately and appositely argue that if that be so, in no way the legal heirs of the original defendant would be prejudiced and it is for the real owner to come and lay his claim as against the plaintiffs, if the plaintiffs ultimately succeeds. 5. A bare perusal of the order of the trial Court would reveal that the trial Court has not properly kept itself informed of the actual facts. In para 5 of its judgment, the lower Court remarked as though the legal heirs of the deceased defendant contended that the property belonged to the family and not to the defendant. 5. A bare perusal of the order of the trial Court would reveal that the trial Court has not properly kept itself informed of the actual facts. In para 5 of its judgment, the lower Court remarked as though the legal heirs of the deceased defendant contended that the property belonged to the family and not to the defendant. Whereas neither in the affidavit of the petitioners in the interim application nor in their additional written statement, there is any reference to it. What are all found mentioned in the additional written statement as well as in the affidavit accompanying the petition, is to the effect that the Venkataraju Naidu, the deceased defendant was not the owner of the suit property and he had no right to enter into such agreement to sell. 6. In my considered opinion such a plea taken by the legal heirs of the deceased D1 is quite antithetical to the stand taken by the deceased D1 and it is not open for them to come forward with such a suicidal plea. It is not even found stated in the additional written statement that the legal heirs are the owners of the suit property. 7. In such a case, the trial Court should not have allowed such an additional written statement to be filed before the Court. I am fully convinced that such an additional written statement is only for the purpose of bamboozling and side tracking the entire issue involved in this case and accordingly, the order of the trial Court is required to be interfered with. The five decisions referred to by the trial Court in its order are all relating to the delay aspect only and not in respect of the pleas, which are taken by the legal heirs, quite antithetical to the pleas taken by their predecessor. 8. Hence, the order of the lower Court is set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed. Accordingly, the I.A.No.275 of 2007 is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.