Madras High Court
Punniakotti vs Pandurangan on 6 March, 2025
Author: P.T.Asha
Bench: P.T.Asha
C.R.P.PD.No.892 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.R.P.PD.No.892 of 2025
and
C.M.P.No.5195 of 2025
Punniakotti ... Petitioner
Vs
1.Pandurangan
Muniammal (died)
2.K.Mohana
3.S.Prakash
4.Munusamy
5.Purushothaman ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
against the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 30.08.2024 made in I.A.No.4 of
2022 in O.S.No.18 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Madurantakam.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ragavendran
ORDER
Challenging the dismissal of their application seeking to implead the
respondents 3 and 4 as defendants 3 and 4 in the suit, the plaintiff is before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 04:39:02 pm )
this Court.
2. The facts in brief are herein below narrated and the parties are
referred to in the same ranking as before the trial Court.
3. The plaintiff had filed a suit O.S.No.18 of 2017 on the file of the
District Munsif, Maduranthakam seeking a declaration of his title to the suit
schedule property and also for a consequential injunction restraining the
defendants from in any way interfering with his peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit property.
4. Pending the suit, the 2nd defendant had settled a part of the
property measuring an extent of 1.09 ½ acre in Dry Survey No.13/2C in
favour of the proposed 3rd defendant under a Settlement Deed dated
07.08.2019. Further, the 1st defendant had given a General Power of
Attorney with reference to another extent of 1.09 ½ acre in the very same
Survey Number in favour of the proposed 3rd defendant under a registered
General Power of Attorney Deed dated 08.08.2019. On the strength of this
Power of Attorney, the proposed 3rd defendant had sold the property to the
proposed 4th defendant under a registered Sale Deed dated 01.12.2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 04:39:02 pm )
Similarly, she had sold another extent of 1.09 ½ acre to the proposed 4th
defendant under a registered Sale Deed dated 25.03.2021. The defendants 1
and 2 had no locus standii to convey the suit property to the proposed 3rd
defendant through the Settlement Deed and Power of Attorney and the
proposed 3rd defendant, in turn, had no authority to sell the property to
the proposed 4th defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff sought to implead
the respondents 3 and 4 as defendants in the suit.
5. The 2nd defendant had filed a counter affidavit, which was
adopted by the 1st defendant, in which it has been contended that they
are co-owners of the property and have every right to convey the
property. Therefore, in exercise of their right as rightful owners, they
conveyed the property to the proposed parties. They had very clearly
stated that there was no necessity to implead the pendente lite
purchasers, as any order that is likely to be passed against defendants 1
and 2 will automatically enure to the proposed parties.
6. The learned District Munsif, Madurantakam, by her order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 04:39:02 pm )
dated 30.08.2024, was pleased to dismiss the said petition taking into
account the fact that even in the absence of the proposed parties, the
suit could be adjudicated effectively which would go to clearly show
that neither of the parties required the presence of the proposed parties
to arrive at a decision in the suit. The learned Judge had relied on a
Judgment of this Court in 2001 (1) MLJ 101 [Bakthavatsalam Vs.
Anjapuli and 5 others] wherein it has been held that, any alienation
pending the suit is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and the subsequent
purchasers, who purchased the property, are aware of the proceedings
and are bound by the decisions to be rendered therein. Challenging the
said order, the plaintiff is before this Court.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
materials available on record.
8. The proposed parties admittedly are pendente lite purchasers
and their purchase would in no way affect the case of the plaintiff in as
much as the proposed parties have only stepped into shoes of their
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 04:39:02 pm )
vendors namely defendants 1 and 2. The suit can be adjudicated
effectively without impleading the proposed parties. Further, the
defendants 1 and 2 have, in their counter, clearly stated that the
proposed parties would be bound by any decision that is proposed to be
passed against the defendants 1 and 2. Therefore, in the above
circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the
learned District Munsif, Madurantakam. Accordingly, the civil revision
petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.03.2025
srn
To
The District Munsif Court,
Madurantakam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 04:39:02 pm )
P.T. ASHA, J.,
srn
and
06.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 04:39:02 pm )
