Periyanayaki vs S.K.Venkattassala Pandian
2021 Latest Caselaw 24521 Mad

                                                                        C.R.P.(MD) No.1277 of 2019

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                  DATED: 13.12.2021

                                                      CORAM :

                                     THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

                                            C.R.P.(MD) No.1277 of 2019
                                                       and
                                            C.M.P.(MD) No.7048 of 2019

                Periyanayaki                                               ... Petitioner

                                                          vs.
                1.S.K.Venkattassala Pandian

                2.Vaijeyanthi Mala

                3.Lagambal Achi                                            ... Respondents

                PRAYER:- This Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil
                Procedure, to call for the records relating the against fair order and decreetal
                order dated 22.04.2019 made in I.A.No.3 of 2019 in O.S.No.10 of 2009 on the
                file of the learned District Munsif, Devakottai and set aside the same.

                                  For Petitioner  : Mr.K.Sivabalan
                                  For Respondents : Mr.S.Madhavan

                                                       ORDER

The third party is before this Court, challenging the order passed by the

learned District Munsif, Devakottai, dismissing her application to implead

herself as a party to the suit in O.S.No.10 of 2009.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD) No.1277 of 2019

2.The facts in brief are as follows:-

3.The respondents 1 and 2 herein had filed the suit in O.S.No.10 of 2009

for bare injunction in respect of the property measuring an extent of 32½ cents

comprised in S.No.B1/124 part of Devakottai Town, Sivagangai District within

the specified four boundaries. The plaintiffs would claim a right to the suit

property as legal representatives of one Muthaiah Srinivasan, to whom the suit

property had been allotted under a registered deed of partition dated 13.03.1947.

The defendant, who had no manner of the right for title to the suit property, was

attempting to interfere with the plaintiffs' possession and therefore, the suit. The

defendant had filed a written statement denying the claim of the plaintiffs and

setting up title on herself. While so, the petitioner herein has filed an application

to implead herself as the 2nd defendant. She would submit that she is the mother

of the plaintiffs and is also entitled to a share in the suit property along with the

plaintiffs. The plaintiffs without impleading herself have filed the suit.

Therefore, she is an interested party, who should be impleaded as a party to the

proceedings.

4.The 3rd respondent/1st defendant had filed a counter interalia

contending that the plaintiffs were colluding together and acting against the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD) No.1277 of 2019

interest of the 1st defendant. The proposed party/petitioner herein and the

plaintiffs are living together as a Hindu undivided family. The suit is one for

bare injunction. That apart, the suit is at the evidence stage. On 29.10.2018, the

plaintiffs had filed an application for reopening the evidence. After the evidence

was reopened and a new document was filed, the present petition has been filed.

This is nothing but an attempt to protract the proceedings.

5.The learned District Munsif, Devakottai on considering the records

dismissed the application stating that the proposed party was not a necessary

party to the proceedings. Challenging the same, the revision petitioner is before

this Court.

6.Heard the learned counsels on either side.

7.The suit in question is a suit for bare injunction, where the plaintiffs

would submit that they are in possession and their possession has been

interfered with by the defendants. The proposed party is the mother of the

plaintiffs. The suit is not one for declaration. In these circumstances, when the

issue involved is only one for showing possession, there is no necessity to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD) No.1277 of 2019

implead the proposed party and the learned Judge has rightly dismissed the said

application.

8.I therefore find no reason to interfere with this well considered

judgment of the Court below. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition stands

dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

                Index             : Yes / No                                 13.12.2021
                Internet          : Yes / No
                mm

                To

                The District Munsif,
                Devakottai.




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

                                    C.R.P.(MD) No.1277 of 2019



                                                P.T.ASHA, J.

                                                          mm




                                  C.R.P.(MD) No.1277 of 2019




                                                   13.12.2021



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis