Madras High Court
G.Kannammal vs Pjayaraman on 6 January, 2025
Author: S.S. Sundar
Bench: S.S. Sundar
OSA.No.257/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.01.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
OSA.No.257/2024 & CMP.No.29952/2024
K.P.Elumalai [Deceased]
1.G.Kannammal
2.Manga
3.Vidya
4,Magesh ... Appellants
Vs.
1.PJayaraman
2.J.Anbarasu
3.J.Deenadayalan
4.J.Balachandran ... RR 1 to 4 / Plaintiffs
5.S.Pathipooranammal
6.Kullayi @ Pushpa
7.A.venkat Rao
8.A.Alamelu
9.Vimala
10.Neeraja
11.Nandini
12.Naveen
13.Al.Alagappan
14.N.Sahul Hameed ... RR 5 to 14 / Defendants
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA.No.257/2024
Prayer : Original Side Appeal preferred under Order 36 Rule 1 of Madras
High Court Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act
against the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2023 made in A.No.505/2015
in CS.No.502/2008 dismissing A.No.505/2015 in CS.No.502/2008 for
impleading the appellants herein.
For Appellants : Mr.P.Radha Krishnan
JUDGMENT
[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.,]
(1)The present appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single
Judge dated 28.04.2023 in A.No.505/2015 in CS.No.502/2008 dismissing
the application filed for impleading the appellants herein who are third
parties to the suit, as parties to the suit proceedings.
(2)The appellants claim that they have some definite interest in the property
which is the subject matter of the suit in CS.No.502/2008 filed by one
Jayaraman and 3 others as against respondents 5 to 14 herein. The said
suit is for declaration of plaintiffs' title and to declare the Settlement Deed
dated 03.10.2007 and the Sale Deed dated 31.08.2007 executed by the 1st
defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant and defendants 3 to 8 in favour
of the 10th defendant, as void and non est in law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(3)The plaintiffs trace title through their grandfather by name
Thiru.Sadagopan, who is a defendant in a suit in OS.No.813/1914. We
are concerned only with the plaint averments. In the plaint, the cause of
action against the defendants is stated in detail and the appellants are
noway connected with the said suit. The 1st defendant is the daughter of
Sadagopan and other defendants are impleaded as successors in interest
by documents which are alleged as void. It is to be noted that a reference
is made to one Elumalai whose name was included vide proceedings of
the Collector dated 28.07.1997. It is further stated that the Collector
thereafter cancelled the sub-divisions and directed restoration of revenue
records to its original state. Even though the appellants refer to the inter-
se dispute between the said Elumalai through whom the appellants claim
title and plaintiffs as well as one Parameswaran, this Court is unable to
appreciate the contention of the appellants to implead themselves as a
party to the suit.
(4)The plaintiffs have alleged definite cause of action for the reliefs which
they have prayed for in the suit as against the defendants. Neither the
plaintiffs are claiming right under the appellants nor the appellants are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
connected to the defendants in the suit. The suit between plaintiffs and
defendants in CS.No.502/2008 is independent and no issue affecting title
or right of the appellants herein, arise for consideration. It is not the case
of the appellants that the decision in the suit will affect their right to
enjoy the property. Noo collusion between plaintiffs and defendants in
the suit is alleged by the appellants. It is in the said circumstances, it is
evident that the outcome of the suit is not likely to affect the independent
right if any, of the appellants.
(5)The law is settled to the effect that scope of litigation cannot be enlarged
by impleading or adding parties. Having regard to the scope of the suit,
the Trial Court is not required to decide any dispute between the
appellants and plaintiffs.
(6)Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of a
Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Aruna Vimalkumar Garg &
Another Vs. Dani Sadan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd and Others
[CDJ 2010 BHC 2135]. The Division Bench of Bombay High Court in
the said judgment has held as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
''9....In other words, controversies with regard to
the right which is set up and the relief claimed on one
side and denied on the other call for adjudication and
not controversies which may arise between the plaintiff
/ appellant and the defendants inter se or questions
between the parties to the suit and a third party.''
(7)It is to be noted that the judgment relied upon by the appellants is quite
contrary to the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants.
Even in the said judgment, it is admitted that in a suit, only controversies
with regard to right which is set up and the relief claimed on one side and
denied on the other, call for adjudication and not controversies between
the parties to the suit and a third party.
(8)This observation is made following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal [AIR 2005 SC 2813] where the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that controversies raised between the
parties to the litigation must only be gone into by Court. In the instant
case, the controversy which has been projected by the appellants all along
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
is the controversy alleged as between the plaintiffs and the appellants
who are the third parties to the suit.
(9)In that view of the matter, this Court is unable to find any merit in this
appeal.
(10)Accordingly, the Original Side Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [P.D.B., J.]
06.01.2025
AP
Internet : Yes
To
1.The Section Officer
VR Section, High Court
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S. SUNDAR, J.,
and
P.DHANABAL, J.,
AP
06.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
