Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2360 (MAD)

Vinayagam v. Akilandammal

2017-08-02

V.M.VELUMANI

body2017
ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 18.08.2005, made in I.A.No.77 of 2004 in A.S.No.9 of 2003, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai. 2. Petitioner is the third party, respondents 1 and 2 are the appellants 1 and 2 and respondents 3 to 10 are the respondents 1 to 8 in A.S.No.9 of 2003, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai. 3rd respondent filed a suit against all the other respondents in the civil revision petition for declaration of title to the suit property and delivery of possession, in O.S.No.1216 of 1982, on the file of the District Munsif, Thiruvannamalai. The said suit was decreed on 30.09.2002. Against the said judgment and decree, the respondents 1 and 2 filed the above appeal, A.S.No.9 of 2003. The petitioner filed I.A.No.77 of 2004, to implead him as a party in the first appeal. 3. According to the petitioner, he had purchased the property by a sale deed dated 16.12.1996, from the 5th respondent herein/6th defendant. He is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property from the date of purchase. The respondents 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 to 10, in collusion with 3rd respondent, did not conduct the suit properly. Therefore, in the circumstances, the petitioner is necessary and proper party to the first appeal. 4. The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner purchased the suit property pending suit and he is not a bonafide purchaser. The respondents 1 and 2 and other defendants contested the suit and only after their contest, the suit was decreed. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed appeal and they are conducting the case and appeal is pending. There is no collusion between the respondents. The 3rd respondent denied that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser and he had improvement to the suit lands. 5. The learned Judge, considering the averments in the affidavit, counter affidavit and judgments relied on by the petitioner, dismissed the application, holding that the petitioner steps into the shoes of his vendor and at the maximum he will be entitled to rights of his vendor. The suit was contested and the same was pending for more than 20 years, the learned Judge, dismissed the I.A. filed by the petitioner. 6. The suit was contested and the same was pending for more than 20 years, the learned Judge, dismissed the I.A. filed by the petitioner. 6. Against the said order of dismissal, dated 18.08.2005, made in I.A.No.77 of 2004 in A.S.No.9 of 2003, the present civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. Though notice was served on the respondents 1,2,4,5 and 7 to 9 and their names were printed in the cause list, there is no representation either in person or through counsel. The respondents 6 and 10 herein have not appeared before learned Judge in I.A.No.77 of 2004. Therefore, notice to the respondents 6 and 10, dispensed with. 8. From the materials on record, it is seen that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner purchased the property from 5th respondent/6th defendant, pending suit. The purchase by the petitioner pending suit without leave of the Court is void and not valid. The contention of the petitioner that the respondents are colluding together and respondent/defendants are not contesting the suit is contrary to the facts as seen from the records. The suit was decreed after contest and respondents 1 and 2 have filed appeal in the year 2003. In view of these facts, the petitioner is not necessary and proper party and he will be entitled to the rights of his vendor, only in the proceedings. 9. The learned Judge considering all the materials available on record, dismissed the application by giving cogent and valid reasons. In these circumstances, there is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court with the order of the learned trial Judge, dated 18.08.2005. 10. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.