Madras High Court
Ramasamy vs Munusamy on 22 December, 2021
C.R.P(PD)No.2846, 2847 & 2851 of 2021
and CMP.Nos.20635 & 20642 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.R.P(PD)Nos.2846, 2847 & 2851 of 2021
and
CMP.Nos.20635 & 20642 of 2021
Ramasamy ..Petitioner in all three
revisions
Vs.
1.Munusamy
2.Narayanasamy
3.Akkaiyammal
4.Abbiah
5.Munirathina
6.Kandha
7.Nethra
8.Sunandha
9.Popjohn
10.Vazeer
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(PD)No.2846, 2847 & 2851 of 2021
and CMP.Nos.20635 & 20642 of 2021
11.Thoulath Sheriff
12.Rajendran
13.Veerabathira ..Respondents in all three revisions
Common prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, against the fair and final orders passed in IA.Nos.2 &
3 of 2019 and 4 of 2021 in OS.Nos.62 of 2019 dated 28.09.2021 passed by
the learned Additional District Judge, Hosur.
For Petitioners in all three revisions : Mrs.R.Aparna
COMMON ORDER
The petitioner, aggrieved by the dismissal of his applications in
IA.Nos.2 & 3 of 2019 filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead
himself in the suit and the injunction application and IA.No.4 of 2021,
seeking leave to produce documents has come up with these revisions.
2.According to the petitioner, the suit properties belonged to him
as declared by the Court in OS.No.298 of 2004 by its judgment dated
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(PD)No.2846, 2847 & 2851 of 2021
and CMP.Nos.20635 & 20642 of 2021
09.11.2011 and the suit in OS.No.62 of 2019, being a suit for partition of
the properties that were subject matter of OS.No.298 of 2004 he is an
interested person in the suit.
3.The claim was resisted by the defendants contending that neither
the plaintiff nor the defendants in OS.No.62 of 2019 were parties to the suit
in OS.No.298 of 2004. It was also contended that the suit in OS.No.298 of
2004 was filed by the petitioner herein as a general power agent of Elamma,
Munikrishna, Manju, Ellamma and Sundaramma, seeking declaration of
their title. Therefore, the petitioner in his individual capacity has no
locustandi to seek impleading in the partition suit. It was also claimed that
the general power of attorney that was given to the petitioner was cancelled
as early as on 19.11.2019 under a registered instrument. Therefore, the
petitioner is not a necessary party to the suit. The Trial Court accepted the
defence and dismissed the suit.
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(PD)No.2846, 2847 & 2851 of 2021
and CMP.Nos.20635 & 20642 of 2021
4.Mrs.R.Aparna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would vehemently contend that only if the properties available, a suit for
partition would be maintainable. According to her, since the properties have
been sold, the suit for partition would not lie. It is for the parties to the suit
for partition to work out their rights. Once it is found that the petitioner has
no right over the property, he has no locostandi to seek impleading in the
partition suit. The petitioner had filed a suit as the power agent of some
persons and had obtained a decree in their favour. It is for those persons to
ascertain their rights. The petitioner is not asserting their right as a power
agent. He wants to implead himself as a party in his individual capacity,
which is not possible. Hence, I do not see any merit in these revisions.
These civil revision petitions therefore, fail and they are accordingly,
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
22.12.2021
kkn
Index:No
Internet:Yes
Speaking
4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(PD)No.2846, 2847 & 2851 of 2021
and CMP.Nos.20635 & 20642 of 2021
To:-
The Additional District Court,
Hosur.
5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(PD)No.2846, 2847 & 2851 of 2021
and CMP.Nos.20635 & 20642 of 2021
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
KKN
C.R.P(PD)Nos.2846, 2847 & 2851 of 2021
and
CMP.Nos.20635 & 20642 of 2021
22.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
