Kamaraj,S/O.Nallu Padayachi v. Hari Prasad

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :

31.07.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN and C.M.P.No.16157 of 2016 Kamaraj

...Petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff

Vs.

1.Hari Prasad 2.Aarthi 3.Varatharajan 4.P.Mani 5.M.Somasundaram ....1 to 5 Respondents/Respondents/Defendants. 6.M.Venkatasalam 7.K.Sathishkumar 8.Minor K.Ramesh Kumar 9.F.Fathimabi 10.A.Jayalakshmi 11.M.Palanimuthu 12.P.Periammal 13.R.Navanedhakumar 14.S.Gurusubramanian 15.G.Padma 16.V.Ramesh 17.R.Venkatasubramanian 18.S.Kalyanaraman 19.M.Saraswathy 20.Minor.Baranidharan 1/5

21.Minor.Karthik 22.M.Manjula 23.A.Sellamuthu 24.R.Malar 25.M.Mayil 26.R.Ponnusamy 27.S.Kana Sevanthi 28.Chinnu Padayachi 29.P.Ponnammal 30.P.Murugesan 31.S.Vasudevan 32.A.Noorjeehan 33.T.Baskar 34.N.Sridhar ...6 to 34 Respondents/Proposed respondents/Defendants Prayer:Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 01.07.2016 passed in I.A.No.486 of 2009 in O.S.No.72 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Attur dismissing the petition.

For Petitioner :

Mr.A.Rajakumar For Respondents :

For RR 15,17,22 and 24 :

Ms.Zeenath Begum For RR 1 to 3 :

Ms.L.Mouli For RR8,10 to 12, 16, 18 to 21, 23, 25, 26, 28 to 31 32 and 34 :

-No AppearanceFor RR 8, 20 and 21 :

Mrs.Periammal :

by their mother.

For RR4 to 7, 9 and 13,14, 27 and 33 :

-Not Ready in NoticeORDER This revision arises against the order of dismissal of a petition to implead 2/5

Respondent Nos.6 to 34 as party defendants to the suit. Between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5, there was a suit. The first and second defendants are represented by their mother in O.S.No.72 of 2007 on the file of the subordinate judge at Attur that ended into a compromise on 27.04.2007, whereunder properties were allotted to the defendant Nos.1 and 2. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 have alienated the property in favour of the proposed respondent Nos.6 to 34. The alienation was on the basis of the compromise.

2. While it is one side of the story, according to the plaintiff in O.S.No.72 of 2007, certain monies, which were to be paid under the compromise, were not paid. Therefore, they filed yet another suit in O.S.No.72 of 2007 seeking for cancellation of the decree in O.S.No.22 of 2002. In this suit, he wants to implead certain parties who have purchased the property from Defendant Nos.1 and 2. Unless and until the plaintiff succeeds in O.S.No.72 of 2007, he cannot reach to the properties which are the subject matter in O.S.No.22 of 2002.

3. The issue in this suit is whether the decree which is sought to be cancelled is null and void or whether it is a valid one. In these proceedings, subsequent purchasers from defendant Nos.1 and 2 are neither proper nor 3/5

necessary. Hence the application to implead them in I.A.No.486 of 2009 was rightly dismissed by the Trial Court and does not require any interference. V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

nst

4. This civil revision petition stands dismissed with the above observations. No costs. Connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. 31.07.2023 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No nst To:

The Subordinate Judge, Attur.

4/5

and C.M.P.No.16157 of 2016 5/5