Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2993 (MAD)

K. Sundara Gounder v. K. Periasamy Gounder

2012-07-13

M.VENUGOPAL

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner/ plaintiff has projected the present Civil Revision Petition before this Court as against the order dated 29.07.2009 in I.A.No.183 of 2009 in O.S.No.195 of 2007 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi in dismissing the application to implead the proposed parties R2 to R4/ D2 to D4 in the main suit. 2. The Learned Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi while passing the orders in I.A.No.183 of 2009 in O.S.No.195 of 2007 on 29.07.2009 has among other things observed at paragraph 5 that the revision petitioner/ plaintiff had not filed any rejoinder in regard to the conduct of proceedings in O.S.No.854 of 1990, wherein a Judgment was delivered to the effect that the suit property belonged to the First respondent/ First defendant and further as against the said Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.854 of 1990 no appeal was filed and came to a consequent conclusion that the second respondent, the Tahsildar, Kallakurichi Taluk , Villupuram District, the third respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District and the fourth respondent, the District Collector, Villupuram were not necessary parties and dismissed the application without costs. 3. According to the Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ plaintiff, the Learned District Munsif while dismissing the I.A.No. 183 of 2009 in O.S.No.195 of 2007 should have appreciated the fact that the property in O.S.No.854 of 1990 was only a small lane out of the suit property and the same does not in any way, affect the present property and the present suit. 4. The Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ plaintiff submits that the Learned District Munsif ought to have seen that the revenue records in respect of the suit property were changed pending suit and proceedings were also conducted before the proposed defendants and that they had also filed report as regards the suit property. 5. The prime contention advanced on the side of the revision petitioner/ plaintiff is that only if the proposed parties are added as defendants, the revision petitioner/ plaintiff can effectively prosecute the suit proceedings so as to arrive at a correct finding in regard to the controversies/ disputes involved between the parties. 6. 5. The prime contention advanced on the side of the revision petitioner/ plaintiff is that only if the proposed parties are added as defendants, the revision petitioner/ plaintiff can effectively prosecute the suit proceedings so as to arrive at a correct finding in regard to the controversies/ disputes involved between the parties. 6. Conversely, the Learned counsel for the First respondent/ First defendant brings it to the notice of this Court that in A.S.No.28 of 1998 on the file of the Learned Special Judge, Kallakurichi on 28.01.2002, it is held that the First respondent/ First defendant is the owner of the suit property and also granted the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants therein. Further, as against the said Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.28 of 1998 no appeal was preferred and as such the Judgment and Decree binds the inter se parties. 7. Yet another submission advanced on behalf of the First respondent/ First defendant is that in any event, the proposed parties are not necessary and proper parties and even without their presence there is no impediment for the Trial Court to proceed with the matter in O.S.No.195 of 2007. 8. Repelling the contention of the Learned counsel for the First respondent/ First defendant, the Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ plaintiff draws the attention of this Court to the letter/ report of the Tahsildar, Kallakurichi addressed to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kallakurichi, wherein, according to the revision petitioner/ plaintiff, the suit property has been mentioned as one belonging to him. 9. At this stage, this Court pertinently points out that just because the Tahsildar, Kallakurichi had addressed a letter dated 07.02.1995 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kallakurichi, it could not be said that the Tahsildar, Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Collector, Villupuram are necessary and proper parties to the suit. To consider a person as a necessary party/defendant, there ought to be a right to certain relief against him in regard to the matter involved in the suit. A necessary party is one without whom no decree can be passed effectively. A proper party is one whose presence enable the Court to adjudicate more 'effectively and completely'. The ingredients of Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. are discretionary in nature. The enquiry visualized as per Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of C.P.C. refers to the cause of action as presented by the plaintiff in a suit. A proper party is one whose presence enable the Court to adjudicate more 'effectively and completely'. The ingredients of Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. are discretionary in nature. The enquiry visualized as per Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of C.P.C. refers to the cause of action as presented by the plaintiff in a suit. A person who is neither a necessary party nor a proper party cannot be allowed to be a party to a suit or proceedings, as opined by this Court. 10. It is to be noted that the power of a Court to add a party to the proceedings cannot depend mainly on the issue whether he/she has interest in the suit property. The issue is whether the right of a person may be affected. If he/ she is not added as a party. Such right will also include an enforceable legal right. Even in their absence the suit can be proceeded further and the controversies can be decided in the considered opinion. 11. In the present case on hand, this Court opines that R2 to R4/ proposed respondents/ defendants are not the necessary or proper parties because of the simple fact that, even in their absence, there is no impediment for the Trial Court to proceed further to determine the controversies between the parties. If need be, it is open to the petitioner/ plaintiff to examine the concerned and to establish his claim/ case. If there is a dispute between rival parties in respect of a title to a property, then for an effective and efficacious remedy, it is open to the aggrieved party to approach the competent civil forum/ civil court and not the Revenue Authorities. Even otherwise, there is no prohibition in law for the petitioner/plaintiff to examine the Tahsildar, Kallakurichi if situation so warrants during the conduct of trial proceedings in the main suit. In that view of the matter, this Civil Revision Petition sans merits. 12. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The order dated 29.07.2009 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi in I.A.No.183 of 2009 in O.S.No.195 of 2007 is affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Civil Revision Petition. 12. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The order dated 29.07.2009 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi in I.A.No.183 of 2009 in O.S.No.195 of 2007 is affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Civil Revision Petition. It is made clear that the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition will not preclude the revision petitioner/ plaintiff to examine the Tahsildar, Kallakurichi to prove his letter/ report dated 07.02.1995 addressed to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kallakurichi in the manner known to law and in accordance with law (if need be and if situation so warrants).