Madras High Court
M.Sekar vs N.Krishnan on 6 January, 2021
CRP.(PD).No.3059 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.01.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.R.P.(PD).No.3059 of 2015
and
MP.No.1 of 2015
M.Sekar ..Petitioner
Vs.
1.N.Krishnan
2.S.Mohan ..Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India,
praying to allow the above Civil Revision Petition and set aside the order and
decreetal order dated 12.03.2015 passed in I.A.No.17 of 2015 in O.S.No.289 of
2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Chidambaram.
For Petitioners : Dr.P.Jagadeesan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Muthukumar for R2
R1- No appearance
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the fair and decreetal
order in I.A.No.17 of 2015 in O.S.No.289 of 2011 on the file of the Principal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.(PD).No.3059 of 2015
District Munsif, Chidambaram, thereby allowing the petition filed by the
respondents herein to implead the 2nd respondent as one of the plaintiff in the
main suit.
2. The 1st respondent is the original plaintiff, who had filed the suit for
declaration and recovery of possession in respect of the suit schedule
property. Pending suit, the 1st respondent herein sold out the entire suit
schedule property in favour of the 2nd respondent herein by sale deed dated
09.10.2014. Thereafter, he became the absolute owner of the suit schedule
property and hence, he has to prosecute the suit as the purchaser of the entire
suit property. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner viz., the defendant
preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
3. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the 1st
respondent/ sole plaintiff now died and as such the 2nd respondent being the
purchaser of the entire suit schedule property has to prosecute the suit filed
by the 1st respondent herein. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel
for the 2nd respondent would rely upon the judgment of this court in
V.L.Dhandapani and others vs. Revathy Ramachandran and others reported
in 2014 (4) CTC 814, wherein, this court has observed as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.(PD).No.3059 of 2015
To the same effect is the decision of this
Court in Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon (2005)
11 SCC 403 where this Court held that a transferor
pendente lite may not even defend the title
properly as he has no interest in the same or
collude with the plaintiff in which case the interest
of the purchaser pendente lite will be ignored. To
avoid such situations the transferee pendente lite
can be added as a party defendant to the case
provided his interest is substantial and not just
peripheral. This is particularly so where the
transferee pendente lite acquires interest in the
entire estate that forms the subject matter of the
dispute. This Court observed:
"16. The doctrine of lis pendens applies only
where the lis is pending before a court.
Further pending the suit, the transferee is
not entitled as of right to be made a party to
the suit, though the court has a discretion to
make him a party. But the transferee
pendente lite can be added as a proper party
if his interest in the subject-matter of the
suit is substantial and not just peripheral. A
transferee pendente lite to the extent he has
acquired interest from the Defendant is
vitally interested in the litigation, where the
transfer is of the entire interest of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.(PD).No.3059 of 2015
Defendant; the latter having no more interest
in the property may not properly defend the
suit. He may collude with the Plaintiff.
Hence, though the Plaintiff is under no
obligation to make a lis pendens transferee a
party, under Order 22 Rule 10 an alienee
pendente lite may be joined as party. As
already noticed, the court has discretion in
the matter which must be judicially exercised
and an alienee would ordinarily be joined as a
party to enable him to protect his interests.
The Court has held that a transferee
pendente lite of an interest in immovable
property is a representative-in-interest of the
party from whom he has acquired that
interest. He is entitled to be impleaded in
the suit or other proceedings where the
transferee pendente lite is made a party to
the litigation; he is entitled to be heard in
the matter on the merits of the case."
4. The above case is squarely applicable to the case on hand since the
2nd respondent purchased the entire suit property from the 1st respondent, now
the 1st respondent is also no more. Therefore, the trial court rightly allowed
the petition. This court do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.(PD).No.3059 of 2015
passed by the trial court. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
5. It is also seen that the suit is of the year 2011, as such the counsel for
the respondent prays for a direction for speedy disposal of the main suit.
Considering the above submission and the fact that the suit is of the year 2011,
the trial court is directed to complete the trial within a period of twelve (12)
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
06.01.2021
dsa
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
To
The Principal District Munsif, Chidambaram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.(PD).No.3059 of 2015
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
dsa
C.R.P.(PD).No.3059 of 2015
06.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
