A.Thangavelu v. Pavayammal [Died]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03.01.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN A.Thangavelu

...Petitioner

..Vs..

Pavayammal (Died) 1.Maragatham 2.Sengodanadar S/o.Thandava Nadar 3.Sengodanadar S/o.Angappa Nadar 4.R.Palanivel 5.Ramasamy 6.Kandasamy 7.Chokkappan 8.R.Palanivel 9.K.Anbu 10.Chinnammal 11.M.Muthusamy 12.P.Ramesh 13.K.Lakshmanan 14.S.Jothilakshmi 15.K.Varathappan 16.R.Jayaprakash 17.M.Kirubagaran 18.V.R.Amudhavani 19.D.Elango 20.B.Gunasekaran 21.M.Amirtham 22.T.N.Mani 23.Pavayee 1/5

24.B.Annapurani 25.T.Kumathavalli 26.K.Rajendran 27.C.Ganeshan 28.R.M.Annamalai 29.L.Ramanathan 30.S.Arukani 31.S.Chinnusamy 32.P.Eswaramoorthy 33.E.Baithkodi 34.R.Rajavel 35.M.Krishnavel 36.T.Dineshkumar 37.S.Vinodh 38.S.Jothi (Respondents 2to15, 17,21,26,28,31,32,35 to 38 remained exparte before the Trial Court. Hence, notice may be dispensed with on them) ...Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the fair and decretal order of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) at Namakkal dated 08.02.2006 made in I.A.No.36 of 2005 in A.S.No.345 of 2002.

For Petitioners :Mr.P.Valliappan For R2 to 15,17 21,26,28,31,32 35 to 38 :Set exparte before the Trial Court For R1,16,18,19,20, 22,23,24,25,27,29, 30,33,34 : No appearance 2/5

O R D E R

The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.522 of 2008 on the file of the Sub-Court,Tiruchengode seeking relief of partition of 4/24 share in the suit property in Item No.I and II and 4/6 share in Item No.III. The second defendant filed a written statement. Thereafter, I.A.No.918 of 2011 was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking to implead the purchaser from the second respondent.

2. Pending suit, in respect of the suit properties where the plaintiff is seeking share in the property, the proposed party 19 has filed a counter statement which was adopted by 10 and 14. The proposed party 11 as adopted by 20,22,23 and 26 whereby they have stated that they have resisted the claim that Section 52 of the Transfer of the Property Act will not come into operation.

3. On perusal of the order passed by the learned Trial Court, it is clear that the trial Judge has rendered a categorical finding that some of the suit properties are sold during the pendency of this case and in the event of any decree being passed, the same will certainly affect the subsequent sale and proposed parties.

3/5

4. The reason assigned by the learned Trial Judge is not sustainable in law as the proposed parties have purchased the property.

5. Pending suit, the number of lis pendens will come into operation and they have become necessary party for adjudication. Hence, the order passed by the learned trial Judge in I.A.No.918 of 2011 is set aside and the C.R.P is allowed.

6. The Registry is directed to send the order copy within a period of two weeks and the necessary amended copy has to be filed before the trial Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the trial Court shall complete the trial on or before 12 weeks.

03.01.2020 nvi Index:Yes/No Speaking Order:Yes/No Note:Issue order copy on 07.01.2020 To The Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) at Namakkal 4/5

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J., nvi 03.01.2020 5/5