Madras High Court
S.Keerthana vs Lakshmi on 22 September, 2023
C.R.P.No.2272 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.No.2272 of 2019
and
CMP.No.14802 of 2019
S.Keerthana .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.Lakshmi
2.Balamaheswari
3.Anusuya
4.Vijayapriyadharshini
5.Negavardhini
6.K.Arthanari
7.V.M.Vajravel (Died) .. Respondents
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2272 of 2019
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and final order, dated
13.11.2018 in E.A.No.385 of 2018 in E.A.No.101 of 2011 in E.P.No.267
of 2003 in O.S.No.442 of 2000 on the file of I Additional Subordinate
Judge, Erode.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran
For Respondents : Mr.M.Palani for R1 to R5
: Not Ready in Notice for R6
ORDER
One Mr.K.Arthanari filed a suit in O.S.No.442 of 2000 against one
Mr.V.M.Vajravel. The suit was for recovery of money and that suit was
decreed. To execute the said decree, he filed E.P.No.267 of 2003. In the
said execution petition, the Judgment debtor's granddaughter one
Ms.S.Keerthana filed E.A.No.101 of 2011, claiming that she has 1/6th
share in the property. While this was the case, an other litigation came to
be launched. This was at the instance of one Mr.R.Kandasamy.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2272 of 2019
2. The said Mr.R.Kandasamy had entered into a registered sale
agreement, dated 31.05.1999 with the Judgment debtor Mr.V.M.Vajravel
and his son Mr.Sathiskumar. In the said agreement, Mr.Sathiskumar had
stated that he is also representing the interest of his daughter
Ms.S.Keerthana.
3. As the agreement was not honoured, a suit for specific
performance of the agreement of sale was filed in O.S.No.25 of 2004 on
the file of the I Additional District Judge at Erode. The said suit was
decreed on 17.01.2005. On the basis of the decree, Mr.R.Kandasamy got
a sale deed executed in his favour on 06.07.2017. This was in E.P.No.19
of 2005 in O.S.No.25 of 2004.
4. On the strength of this decree and subsequent execution
proceedings initiated by him, Mr.R.Kandasamy launched a claim petition
in E.A.No.151 of 2008. The said Mr.R.Kandasamy died, pending the
litigation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2272 of 2019
5. Taking note of the fact that the Civil Revision Petitioner has
filed E.A.No.101 of 2011, the legal heirs of Mr.R.Kandasamy filed an
application to implead themselves in E.A.No.385 of 2018 and that came
to be allowed against which the present Civil Revision Petition.
6. The scope of E.A.No.101 of 2011 is to be decided as per the
provisions of Order 21 Rule 58 of Code of Civil Procedure. In such an
application, the Court tests the claim that has been preferred and whether
the claimant has any right, title or interest to the suit property. In this
proceeding, impleading of third party is absolutely unnecessary. The
Court if it adjudicates that Ms.S.Keerthana has a share, then it is entitled
to pass the order accordingly. If the Court comes to the conclusion that
Ms.S.Keerthana does not have a share, her claim petition will stand
dismissed.
7. Mr.M.Palani, learned counsel appearing for Respondents 1 to 5
urge that the claim petition is filed with respect to their property
purchased under a decree of Court and therefore, they should be
permitted to join the claim petition. He argues in case, they are not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2272 of 2019
impleaded in the said proceeding, it will cause serious prejudice.
8. As noticed above, the predecessor in title of respondents 1 to 5,
namely, Mr.R.Kandasamy had already initiated E.A.No.151 of 2008 in
the said execution petition. The appropriate remedy for the respondents 1
to 5 is to come on record in the said execution application and bring to
the notice of the Court the records that they have in their possession
including the filing of a suit for partition by Ms.S.Keerthana in
O.S.No.203 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional District Judge at Erode
and the dismissal thereof on 28.02.2017. In Ms.S.Keerthana's claim
petition, they are neither proper nor necessary parties. For the sake of
orderly disposal, the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode is
requested to try E.A.No.101 of 2011 along with the pending E.A.No.151
of 2008 and dispose of the same within the period of six (6) months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
9. By the impugned Order, the executing Court has expanded the
scope of the litigation. Hence, the order passed in E.A.No.385 of 2018 in
E.A.No.101 of 2011 in E.P.No.267 of 2003 in O.S.No.442 of 2000, dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2272 of 2019
13.11.2018 is set aside.
10. With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is
allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
22.09.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order :Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
MKN2/VEDA
To
The I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode.
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2272 of 2019
MKN2/VEDA
C.R.P.No.2272 of 2019
and
CMP.No.14802 of 2019
22.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
