Madras High Court
G.Varadharajan (Died) vs S.Pradeep .... 1St on 15 September, 2023
C.R.P.(MD).No.1519 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 15.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
C.R.P.(MD)No.1519 of 2019
and
C.M.P(MD) No.7980 of 2019
1. G.Varadharajan (Died) ... Petitioner/Petitioner/
Proposed 77th Defendant
2. B.Gnanarani
3. R.Bhavani
4. S.Kavitha ... Proposed Petitioners
(Petitioners 2 to 4 are brought on record as Legal
Heirs of the deceased sole petitioner vide order
of this Court dated 17.11.2022 made in C.M.P(MD)
No.1262 of 2022 in C.R.P(MD) No.1519 of 2019
-vs-
1. S.Pradeep .... 1st Respondent/Plaintiff
K.S.Thangapandian (Died)
2. K.S.T.Sivarajan Pandian @
Mohanrajapandian
3. K.S.T.Navaneetha Krishnan
4. K.S.T.Shanmugaraja @ Jeyakumar
5. K.S.T.Krishnakumar
6. R.Nagarani
7. K.Brinda
8. A.Praveena
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.1519 of 2019
9. V.Vijayaranga Muthulakshmi
10. V.Sivaramakrishnavijayan
11. V.Jayachandran
12. R.Senthilkumari
13. S.Duruvan
14. C.Mahalakshmi Thai
15. C.Siva Rangaraja
16. C.Siva Nagaraja
17. C.Siva Thaniraja
18. C.Sivakrishnaraja
19. S.Geetharani
20. Sivaponnurani
21. R.N.Jegadeesan
22. N.R.Manivannan
23. L.Kamalakannan
24. N.Palanikumar
25. N.Senthilkumar
26. A.Vairavan
27. G.Muralidharan
28. R.Saravanakumar
29. R.Shanmugam
30. R.Satyamoorthy
31. R.Kalyanasundaram
32. E.Arulsaravanan
33. R.Indra
34. V.Rajiv Kumar
35. V.Pathibakumar
36. N.Suganya
37. N.Muthurenganathavijayan
38. S.Abarna
39. Minor K.Vaishnavai
through guardian Krishnakumar
D/o. Krishnakumar
40. Minor K.Adhishree
through guardian Krishnakumar
D/o. Krishnakumar
2/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.1519 of 2019
41. S.Ramakrishnaveni @ Baby
42. Minor S.Sivaswarya
through guardian
Geetha Devi,
D/o. Geetha Devi
43. G.Chandran
44. R.Sureshkumar
45. P.Radhakrishnan
46. P.Ponnusamy
47. P.Pandiaraj
48. V.Packiam
49. S.G.Natarajan
N. Vijayalakshmi (Died)
50. K.Dharmarajan
51. D.Sakthimayil
52. K.Selvarajan
53. S.Jeyapriya
54. L.Soundar
55. S.Ananth
56. S.Gokul
57. Murugan
58. Amtuha
59. Pandiarajan
60. C.Kumaresan
61. Saranya
62. K.Ravi
63. M.Indira
64. Sree Balaji Trading Company
Through Sri Iaguvararu Seenivasa Rao
Krishnamoorthy and
Shree Jalagnathi Shreenivasa Rao,
D.No.19-7-668, Sagadigunta,
Guntur – 522003,
Andhrapradhesh.
3/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.1519 of 2019
65. Nageswara Rao
66. Kalavai Guruprasad Rao
67. Sri Kothavenkatasubba Rao
68. Sri Kothavenkata Varaprasada Rao
69. Sri Kotha Sambasiva Rao
70. Srinivasa Rao
71. Sri Gundavenkata Narasimha Rao
72. Sree Vijayasai Cotton Traders
Through Vemulasambasiva Rao & Atukari
Srinivasa Rao and Sri Gundu Venkata Bramhanda Rao,
D.No.4-1-15, Ramanna Petta 1st Line,
Opp., Rammanna Towers, Guntur – 522 003,
Andharapradhesh.
73. Nageswara Rao
74. Sooripeda Srinivasa Rao
75. V.Murugan ... Respondents 2 to 75/Respondents/
Defendants
(Respondents 2 to 75 notice not necessary as given up)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, against the fair and executable Order dated 13.08.2019
made in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.38 of 2012 on the file of the learned
Additional District Judge, FTC, Theni.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Suriyanarayanan
For Respondents : Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan – for R1
: Given up – for R2 to R75
4/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.1519 of 2019
ORDER
The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and executable
Order dated 13.08.2019 made in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.38 of 2012 on
the file of the learned Additional District Judge, FTC, Theni.
2. The first petitioner is the proposed 77th defendant and the first
respondent is the plaintiff before the Court below.
3. The brief facts which give rise to the present Civil Revision Petition
are that the first petitioner is the third party to a partition suit. According to
the petitioner, he submits that he is a tenant of the vacant land of the suit in
item Nos.6 and 8 of the property, and that they have put up superstructure
over the said vacant land and that they have been in possession and
enjoyment over the same since 1950. Therefore, he would submit that by
virtue of Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, their rights have to be
protected. Therefore, they are necessary and proper party in the proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.1519 of 2019
4. However, the said contention was objected by the learned counsel
appearing for the first respondent who is none other than the plaintiff. The
learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would submit that this is only a
suit for partition and that the proposed parties are only claiming a tenancy
rights. For adjudicating the division of property the tenant's presence is not
required, and that the tenant is not a proper and necessary party. Therefore, he
prayed to confirm the order passed by the Court below.
5. This Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions of the
learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the first
respondent.
6. It is well settled principle of law that necessary party is one without
whom no effective decree and judgment could be passed. Similarly, the
proper party is one, whose presence is necessary for complete and final
adjudication. In this case, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the
first respondent, the presence of the proposed parties is no way necessary for
deciding the partition suit. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners
would submit that since the tenant of the vacant site is having right over the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.1519 of 2019
superstructure, he may be construed as a proper party and prayed to implead
in this case.
7. But, this Court is not in a position to agree with the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Because, a tenant who claims
right under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, would surface only
when the owner of the property is filing the eviction suit.
8. Here no eviction is sought for against the proposed party or against
the persons those who are occupying in item Nos.6 and 8 of the suit property.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not even a proper
party.
9. In view of the above findings, this Court could not find any material
irregularity with the order passed by the Court below.
10. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However,
the dismissal of the present impleading application will in no way affects the
rights of the petitioners to file a similar application at the final decree
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.1519 of 2019
proceedings. If such an application is filed, the Court below is directed to
dispose of the same according to law without being influenced by the
observation of this Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
15.09.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
To
1. The Additional District Judge,
FTC, Theni.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.1519 of 2019
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
ebsi
C.R.P(MD)No.1519 of 2019
15.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
