Madras High Court
Karpagam vs Senthamarai on 22 April, 2021
CRP.NPD.Nos.708 of 2018 & 3480 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP.NPD.Nos.708 of 2018 & 3480 of 2017 and
CMP.Nos.16180 of 2017 & 3684 of 2018
CRP.NPD.No.708 of 2018
Karpagam ..Petitioner
Vs.
1.Senthamarai
2.Murugan
3.Chenna Krishnan
4.Jayakumar ..Respondents
PRAYER:
The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC
against the dismissal of IA.No.715 of 2016 in I.A.No.416 of 2013 in
OS.No.354 of 2006 dated 27.07.2017 filed by the petitioner as under
Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Gunasekar
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.K.Thiruvengadam
R2 & 3 : Notice served
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.Nos.708 of 2018 & 3480 of 2017
CRP.NPD.No.3480 of 2017
V.Ponnusamy ..Petitioner
Vs.
1.Senthamarai
2.Murugan
3.Chenna Krishnan
4.Jayakumar ..Respondents
PRAYER:
The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC
against the dismissal of IA.No.747 of 2016 in I.A.No.416 of 2013 in
OS.No.354 of 2006 dated 27.07.2017 filed by the petitioner as under
Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Parasasiva Doss
For Respondents : No Appearance
COMMON ORDER
These Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the dismissal
of IA.Nos.715 & 747 of 2016 in I.A.No.416 of 2013 in OS.No.354 of
2006 dated 27.07.2017 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Harur,
thereby dismissing the petitions to implead the petitioners as party to
the proceedings.
2. In both the civil revision petitions, the petitioners are
the proposed parties and the first respondent is the plaintiff and the
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.Nos.708 of 2018 & 3480 of 2017
other respondents are the defendants. The first respondent filed suit
for partition. The second respondent filed written statement stating
that part of the property was already sold out by him. The first
respondent is the daughter and the second respondent is the father.
Even then, the first respondent did not take any step to challenge the
alleged sale and also failed to implead the purchaser of the property.
Thereafter, the suit was decreed by the judgment and decree dated
29.01.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the other respondents filed
appeal suit and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court was
confirmed.
3. On the strength of the decree, the first respondent
filed petition for final decree in IA.No.416 of 2012. In the final decree
application, the court below appointed Advocate Commissioner and
when the Advocate Commissioner visited the property, the petitioner is
being purchaser of part of the property from the second respondent
herein came to understand about the preliminary decree. Immediately
he filed petition to implead himself as party to the final decree. Insofar
as CRP.No.708 of 2018 is concerned, the petitioner is the second wife
of the second respondent and the property which stands in the name
of the petitioner also subjected for partition. Therefore, she also filed
petition to implead herself as party in the final decree application. The
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.Nos.708 of 2018 & 3480 of 2017
court below dismissed for the reason that already preliminary decree
was passed and also confirmed the appeal suit in AS.No.11 of 2011 on
the file of the Sub Court, Harur. Therefore, without impleading the
petitioners as party in the main suit, they cannot be impleaded as
party in the final decree application, since the court cannot go beyond
the preliminary decree which was also confirmed by the first appellate
court.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner is purchaser and also the
property stands in her name and as such they filed petition to implead
themselves as party to the final decree proceedings. The petitioner in
CRP.No.3480 of 2017 purchased part of the property from the second
respondent herein. Therefore, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, he
can be impleaded as party and the trial court may consider while
allotting share in respect of property, which was purchased in the year
1999 by the petitioner to be allotted in favour of the second
respondent. Likewise, the petitioner in CRP.No.708 of 2018 may be
impleaded as party and decide the issue whether the property stands
in the name of the petitioner or not. It would also avoid multiplicity of
proceedings.
5. In view of the above, both the civil revision petitions
are allowed and the orders passed in IA.Nos.715 & 747 of 2016 in
4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.Nos.708 of 2018 & 3480 of 2017
I.A.No.416 of 2013 in OS.No.354 of 2006 dated 27.07.2017 on the file
of the District Munsif Court, Harur are set aside. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No order as to costs.
22.04.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
lok
To
The District Munsif,
Harur
5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.Nos.708 of 2018 & 3480 of 2017
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
lok
CRP.NPD.Nos.708 of 2018 & 3480 of 2017
22.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
