Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2881 (MAD)

Thriveni Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd. v. M. Anbarasi

2022-08-23

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

body2022
ORDER : Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition had been filed by the Petitioner under Article 227 of Constitution of India seeking to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 20.12.2019, made in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.8 of 2008 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Perundurai and dismiss the said I.A.No.1 of 2019. When the case came up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner's vendor K.Dhanalakshmi had purchased the property measuring an extent of 1 Acre 17 Cents from the original Plaintiff in O.S.No.08 of 2008 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Perundurai. When the Suit was pending the Plaintiff died. Therefore, his Legal heirs impleaded themselves as Plaintiffs 2 & 3. Subsequently, the Petitioner herein had purchased the property from Dhanalakshmi. The said Dhanalakshmi was Defendant No.7 in the Suit. 2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the Plaint averments as well as the schedule of the property. Wherein, the property purchased by Dhanalakshmi the vendor of the Petitioner herein was excluded in the Suit for partition of the land measuring an extent of 1 Acre 17 Cents with specific boundaries. While so, Petitioner was impleaded as Defendant No.9 by the Plaintiff 2 & 3. Aggrieved by the same, he had approached this Court by way of Civil Revision Petition. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that, during the pendency of this Petition, the learned Counsel for Plaintiff had filed a memo before the learned District Munsif Court stating that Defendant No.9 is not a necessary party. The copy of the said memo is enclosed along with the Additional Typed Set filed by the Petitioner herein. Also he invited the attention of this Court to the status report uploaded in Court Web Portal wherein the memo was returned stating that C.R.P.No.894 of 2020 is pending before this Court. 4. The learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 vehemently objected to the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner stating that the Petitioner herein is a necessary party. Since the Suit is for partition, he is a necessary party and property alleged to have been sold to the vendor of the Petitioner herein was undivided share and it has to be decided by the trial Court. 5. Since the Suit is for partition, he is a necessary party and property alleged to have been sold to the vendor of the Petitioner herein was undivided share and it has to be decided by the trial Court. 5. Considering the rival submission, the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is accepted that he is not a necessary party as per the averments in the Plaint excluding 1 Acre 17 Cents, as the property was sold by original Plaintiff, the father of the Respondents 1 & 2 along with the other sharers with specific boundaries. Therefore, whatever is submitted by the Respondents 1 & 2 can be agitated regarding the share of Defendant No.7 who is already a party to the suit and filed Written Statement. Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The name of the Petitioner herein is ordered to be struck of as Defendant No.9 in the suit in O.S.No.8 of 2008. The learned District Munsif, Perundurai is directed to proceed with the Suit in O.S.No.8 of 2008, after striking out the name of Defendant No.9, the Petitioner herein. 6. With above direction, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous Petition is closed.