Madras High Court
Angala Easwari @ Eswari Murugesan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 October, 2023
C.R.P(MD)No.2013 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16.10.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
C.R.P(MD)No.2013 of 2017
and C.M.P(MD)No.10089 of 2017
Angala Easwari @ Eswari Murugesan
... Petitioner /Petitioner / Plaintiff
.Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its District Collector,
Madurai.
2.Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable
Endowmeents Department,
Rep. by its Commissioner, Chennai.
3.The Executive Officer,
Vinayagar Kovil,
Elumalai
Pappathi (Died)
4.Vasimalai
5.Nagaraj
6.Pitchairaja
7.Eswaran
8.Kannan
9.Nagendran
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.2013 of 2017
10.Rameshbabu
11.Angala Easwari ..Respondents / Respondents/
Defendants / Proposed parties
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order, dated
14.02.2017, passed in I.A.No.165 of 2016, in O.S.No.529 of 2014, on the
file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Peraiyur.
For Petitioner : Ms.A.Niveditha
for Mr.S.Madhavan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran
Additional Government Pleader for R1
: No appearance for R2 to R11
ORDER
The plaintiff, aggrieved by dismissal of I.A.No.165 of 2016
in O.S.No.529 of 2014, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate Court, Peraiyur, dated 14.02.2017, is the revision petitioner.
2. The suit has been filed for declaration that the plaintiff is
the owner of the suit property and for consequential permanent
injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff
states that for the title in the suit property in the plaint, the defendants 2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.2013 of 2017
and 3 were claiming rights over the same and hence, the suit was
necessitated.
3. The third defendant has filed a written statement in the
said suit. At that stage, the plaintiff has come up with the application
under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) C.P.C, to implead the proposed respondents 4
to 12 as defendants in the suit.
4. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the
application holding that the plaintiff has to establish his or her title over
the suit property and at best, the plaintiff's vendors could be examined as
witnesses and finding that the proposed parties were neither proper nor
necessary parties to decide the issues in the suit, proceeded to dismiss the
application.
5. Aggrieved by the said order of the dismissal, the plaintiff
has preferred the above revision on the ground that the trial Court erred
in dismissing the application as, if the trial was proceeded with in the
presence of the parties, it would avoid multiplicity of proceedings and
there shall be a proper adjudication as well. Further, it is also contended
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.2013 of 2017
that the third defendant has taken a specific plea in the written statement
that even the vendors of the plaintiff did not have any right over the suit
property and therefore, only under such circumstances, the application
has been filed.
6. I have heard Ms.A.Niveditha, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. A.Baskaran, learned Additional Government Pleader
for the first respondent. There is no representation for the respondents
2 to 11.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner apart from putting
forth the contentions raised in the grounds of revision, would also state
that the plaintiff filed the application only in order to avoid multiplicity
of proceedings and would also seek an amendment, proposing to include
an alternative prayer as against the plaintiff's vendor, in the event of the
plaintiff not succeeding to the relief prayed for in the suit. She would
also rely on a judgment of this Court in the case of Alladi Staram V.
P.L.Finance and Investment & Limited reported in 2013-2-MWN(Civil)
510, where the Court has held that even when there is no relief sought
for against the proposed parties, if an effective decree cannot be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.2013 of 2017
passed in their absence and if the Court, in their presence would be able
to give complete effective and proper adjudication upon all the
issues, then the application for impleadment ought to be allowed. This
Court, in the said decision relied on the ratio by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal V. Municipal
Corporation of Greater Bombay and others reported in 1992-2-
SCC-524.
8. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the first respondent would submit that there is no infirmity
in the order of the trial Court and the trial Court had rightly found that
the proposed parties are not necessary for deciding the issues, raised in
the suit and would therefore, pray for confirmation of the order of the
trial Court.
9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
the first respondent and also on perusing the records, including the
impugned order as well as the decision of this Court in Alladi Staram's
case as referred herein supra, I am of the view that in the light of the
submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plaintiff is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.2013 of 2017
proposing to amend the plaint in the event of the impleading application
being allowed and in such event, in order to avoid multiplicity of the
proceedings, besides also to assist the Court giving an effective
adjudication on title to the suit property, claimed under the proposed
parties and also in view of the third defendant specifically taking a stand
in his written statement that even the plaintiff's vendor, did not have any
title in the suit, I am of the view that the proposed parties are necessary
parties to the suit. Further, in a civil suit of this nature, the plaintiff is the
Dominus Litus and it is for the plaintiff to choose the persons to be
arrayed as defendants in the suit, in order to get relief. Therefore, in
view of the same, the order of the trial Court is liable to be set aside and
accordingly is set aside.
10. The Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. The order,
dated 14.02.2017, passed in I.A.No.165 of 2016, in O.S.No.529 of 2014,
on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Peraiyur,
is hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to cost. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Index:Yes/No 16.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.2013 of 2017
Internet:Yes/No
NCC:Yes/No
Ls
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.2013 of 2017
To
1. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Peraiyur,
Madurai District.
2.The District Collector,
Madurai.
3.The Commissioner
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable
Endowments Department, Chennai.
4.The Executive Officer,
Vinayagar Kovil,
Elumalai
5.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.2013 of 2017
P.B.BALAJI,J.
Ls
C.R.P(MD)No.2013 of 2017
16.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
