Madras High Court
E.Ranganayaki vs Ganapathysamy on 18 November, 2024
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
C.R.P.[NPD].No.4147 of 2024
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date : 18.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
C.R.P.[NPD].No.4147 of 2024 & CMP.No. 22715 of 2024
E.Ranganayaki . . . Petitioner
Versus
1. Ganapathysamy
2. Subramaniam
3. Thirumangainayaki
4. Jothimani . . . Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set
aside the Order dated 20.02.2024 dated 20.02.2024 in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in
a.S.No.23 of 2017 on the file of the subordinate Judge, Pollachi.
For petitioner : Mr.K.Sudhakar
For respondent : Mr.C.Veeraraghavan – R4
Page 1 / 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.[NPD].No.4147 of 2024
ORDER
Challenging the dismissal of the application filed to implead the
subsequent purchases as one of the party, this Civil Revision Petition has
been filed.
2. The suit has been filed by the revision petitioner for partition
claiming that the properties are joint family properties. However, the suit
came to be dismissed on 21.06.2017. The fourth respondent has purchased
the property on 01.07.2017. After the dismissal of the suit, the fourth
respondent had purchased the property from the first defendant. The revision
petitioner filed an appeal against the decree and judgment passed in the suit.
During the pendency of the appeal, the revision petitioner filed an application
in I.A.No.2 of 2013 for amendment to include the above property as one of
the property and the said application is pending. It is the stand of the
revision petitioner that in that application, the subject property, which was
purchased by the fourth respondent was omitted in the schedule of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
property due to inadvertence. Hence, the amendment petition has been filed.
As the fourth respondent has purchased the property after the dismissal of the
suit, the plaintiff wants to implead him as one of the party in the appeal. The
said application has been opposed by the respondent on the ground that he
has purchased the property from the first defendant and the property has been
allotted to the first defendant by a partition deed dated 13.07.2011 in a
partition among the first and second defendants. Hence, it is his contention
that the property belong to the first defendant and therefore, the fourth
respondent is not a necessary party to be included. His contention has been
acceded and the application filed by the revision petitioner has been
dismissed. Challenging the same, the present petition has been filed.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that the fourth respondent has purchased the property after the
dismissal of the suit. Hence, he has filed an application to amend the plaint
and the same is pending. Hence, it is his contention that the impugned Order
cannot be sustained.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submitted that the above property was not included in the suit schedule and
the said property has been allotted to the first defendant in a partition deed
dated 13.07.2011. Whereas, the fourth respondent has purchased the
property on 01.07.2017 from the first defendant. According to him, the
partition is of the year 2011 and the same has not been challenged. Hence, he
opposed this revision petition.
5. I have perused entire materials available on record. The suit has
been filed for partition claiming that the properties are joint family
properties. However, the suit has been dismissed. In the appeal filed against
the said judgment, the revision petitioner has filed an application to include
one of the property as the suit property, which is said to be purchased by the
fourth respondent, for amendment and the said application is still pending.
The present application filed for impleadment has been dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. It is relevant to note that the appeal is a continuation of the suit.
Merely because one of the property has not been included, the same will not
deter the plaintiff to seek necessary amendment in the appeal stage to include
the property which is said to be a joint family property. Whether such
property is a joint family property or a self acquired property is a matter of
evidence and it has to be seen independently on the basis of the pleadings
and evidence adduced by both the parties. Such being the position, the
revision petitioner has filed a petition to implead the subsequent purchaser as
one of the party. Therefore, this Court is of the view that his presence is also
required for effective adjudication of the lis between the parties. The
plaintiff being the dominus litis, has every right to implead the person against
whom he seek relief. In such view of the matter, mere impleading the fourth
respondent in the pending appeal will not take away the rights of the
respondents to substantiate their plea that the subject property purchased by
the fourth respondent is not a joint family property. Therefore, mere
impleading will not prejudice the fourth respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the
impugned Order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in A.S.No.23 of 2017 is set
aside. The revision petitioner/appellant is directed to carry out necessary
amendment in the appeal. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
18.11.2024
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes
Speaking/non speaking order
vrc
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vrc
18.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
