Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 42 (MAD)

Vasantha Krishnan v. Jayashree

2012-01-03

R.S.RAMANATHAN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner is one of the legal heirs of one of the judgment debtors by name C.R.Jaganathan who was the second defendant in O.S.No.1256 of 1979. The said suit in O.S.No.1256 of 1979 was filed by M/s.Rajkumar Chit Funds P. Ltd. against C.R.Jaganathan and others, a partnership firm, C.R.Jaganathan and Planiswamy for recovery of Rs.31,798/- and that suit was decreed as prayed for on 12.02.1980. 2. Thereafter, the decree was put to execution and the properties of the judgment debtors were brought to sale and one Velumani was the auction purchaser in that EP. Thereafter, the said auction purchaser, Velumani filed E.A.780 of 2003 for confirmation of the delivery of possession of the property which he purchased in the auction and during the pendency of that application, he died leaving behind his widow, son and mother. Therefore, the widow and son of late Velumani, the successful auction bidder filed E.A.Nos.781 of 2010, 782 of 2010 and 783 of 2010 to condone the delay in bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased Velumani, to set aside abatement and to bring on record the legal representatives of Velumani. 3. The revision petitioner who is one of the legal heirs of the second defendant filed counter in E.A.781 of 2010 stating that all the legal heirs of Velumani were not impleaded and admittedly the mother was alive and she was not impleaded. The same counter was adopted in the other applications. Later, the respondents not pressed E.A.781 of 2010 and 782 of 2010 and those petitions were dismissed and E.A.783 of 2010 which was filed to bring on record the respondents as legal heirs of deceased Velumani was heard and that petition was allowed. Aggrieved against the same, this revision is filed. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after allowing the E.A.781 of 2010 and 782 of 2010 to be dismissed, the court below ought not to have entertained E.A.783 of2010 and ought to have dismissed the same. He further submitted that when the petition to condone the delay and to set aside the abatement were allowed to be dismissed, the petition to bring on record the legal representatives cannot be entertained and without appreciating the same, the lower court allowed the application. 5. He further submitted that when the petition to condone the delay and to set aside the abatement were allowed to be dismissed, the petition to bring on record the legal representatives cannot be entertained and without appreciating the same, the lower court allowed the application. 5. He further submitted that the respondents filed a suit in O.S.No.1385 of 2009 for injunction against the petitioner and others and in that suit, they have stated in paragraph 5, that the deceased Velumani died on 15.07.2007 leaving behind his widow, son and the mother and a Will, and as per the Will, he has bequeathed his property in favour of his wife and son and therefore, they filed the suit for injunction and in the applications filed to implead themselves it was stated that the mother executed settlement in favour of the grandson namely, the second respondent and therefore, the mother was not made as a party and they have taken in-consistent stand for not impleading mother and this aspect was also not properly appreciated by the court below while allowing the application. 6. I am not able to accept the condition of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is admitted that the petitioner is one of the legal heirs of the judgment debtors and the decree passed against the judgment debtors in O.S. 1256 of 1979 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Coimbatore became final. It is also admitted that the sale in favour of Velumani in pursuant to the execution of the decree made in O.S.No.1256 of 1979 has also become final and no steps were taken by the Judgment debtors or by the legal heirs either to set aside the decree or to set aside the auction sale. 7. Therefore, in my opinion, the revision petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the application filed by the deceased Velumani for confirmation of delivery of possession. Of-course there are some procedural lapses as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner and as rightly submitted, after allowing E.A.Nos.781 and 782 of 2010 to be dismissed as not pressed, the Court below ought not have entertained the application to bring on record the legal representatives of Velumani. 8. Of-course there are some procedural lapses as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner and as rightly submitted, after allowing E.A.Nos.781 and 782 of 2010 to be dismissed as not pressed, the Court below ought not have entertained the application to bring on record the legal representatives of Velumani. 8. In my opinion it is only procedural lapses and the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the same and he cannot challenge the application filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Velumani who was the successful auction purchaser. No doubt there is a dispute regarding the Will alleged to have been executed by Velumani as stated in the plaint in O.S.No. 1385 of 2009 and also in the affidavit filed in E.A.Nos.781 and 783 of 2010. But in my opinion, that inconsistency or descrepancy will not affect the case of the respondents. It may be that Velumani died leaving a Will and the mother of Velumani also would have executed settlement. Hence, there cannot be an inconsistency in the case of the respondents. 9. However, having held that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge all these aspects, the revision filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere in the findings of the courts below and the civil revision petition is dismissed. 10. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.