Madras High Court
Veerabagu vs Mallika on 11 November, 2024
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
C.R.P.[NPD].No.4489 of 2024
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date : 11.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
C.R.P.[NPD].No.4489 of 2024
&
CMP.No.25038 of 2024
Veerabagu . . . Petitioner
Versus
1. Mallika
2. Karunakaran
3. Vasanthi
4. Udayasurian @ Suriya
5. Santhi
6. Devi
7. Mahalakshmi . . . Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the
fair and decreetal Order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in A.S.No.52 of 2018 dated
04.10.2023 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem and allow this
Civil Revision Petition.
Page 1 / 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.[NPD].No.4489 of 2024
For petitioner : Mr.V.Sairam
ORDER
Challenging the dismissal of the application filed by the revision petitioner to
implead himself as a respondent in the first appeal, the present Civil Revision
Petition has been filed.
2. The crux of the issue is as follows :
It is the case of the revision petitioner that he has purchased a property on
07.06.1973 from one Mahadevan and others and ever since the date of purchase,
he is in possession and enjoyment of the property. However, the respondents 6
and 7 have filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents 1 to 5,
without impleading the petitioner herein. Hence, the revision petitioner has sought
to be implead himself as the respondent in the appeal.
3. The contention of the respondent before the appellate Court is that
originally, one Veerapagu purchased the property on 07.06.1973 and he has sold
the property in favour of one kandammal, the mother of the respondents 6 and 7
and the mother of the respondents 6 and 7 in turn bequeathed the property in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
favour of the respondents 6 and 7 by a Will dated 23.10.1998. The respondents 1
to 5, who are neighbouring land owners, are disturbing the possession of the
respondents 6 and 7. Hence, the respondents 6 and 7 have filed a suit for bare
injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 5. Considering the nature of the
dispute, the appeallate Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.
Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
4. The revision petitioner seeks right on the basis of the sale deed dated
07.06.1973. Whereas the respondents 6 and 7 claims right over the property on
the basis of the original sale deed dated 07.06.1973 executed in favour of one
Veerapagu. The property originally belonged to one Mahadevan and others and
they sold the property in favour of the said Veerapagu. The said Veerapagu
executed a sale deed in favour of one Kandammal, who is the mother of the
respondents 6 and 7, on 20.12.1982. Subsequently, the said Kandammal executed
a Will bequeathing the property in favour of the respondents 6 and 7. The suit has
been filed by the respondents 6 and 7 only for bare injunction. Possession is only
sine quo non for seeking such a relief. Whereas the petitioner seeks to establish his
right on the basis of the sale deed dated 07.06.1973. If at all the petitioner wants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to establish his right over the property, it is for him to file a suit for declaration and
the judgment and decree in the suit filed for bare injunction will not have any
impact and will not bind the revision petitioner. When there is no cause of action
against the petitioner, the petitioner, as a matter of right, need not be impleaded in
the proceedings. Hence I do not find any merits to interfere with the Order of the
first appellant Court. If at all, the petitioner is advised, he may file a suit for
declaration.
5. With the above observation, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
11.11.2024
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes
Speaking/non speaking order
vrc
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vrc
11.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
