R.V.Dhandapani @ R.V.Ramesh (Died), 1.Chitra v. Venugopal Chettiar Alias R.V.Gopal Chettiar (Died) 1.Roul (Raul),

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11-11-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR CRP No. 5529 of 2025 and CMP Nos.27775 of 2025 R.V.Dhandapani @ R.V.Ramesh (died)

1. Chitra, W/o w/o R.V.Dhandapani @ R.V.Ramesh 2 . Durgambiga, d/o w/o R.V.Dhandapani @ R.V.Ramesh nd petitioner represented by her power of attorney, the 1 st petitioner Chitra w/o R.V.Dhandapani @ R.V.Ramesh (died) ... Petitioner(s) Vs.

Venugopal Chettiar @ R.V.Gopal Chettiar (died) 1 . Roul (Raul) 2 . Union of India 3 . The District Registrar 4 . The Joint Sub Registrar 5 . Usha 6 . M/s Vetri Vinayagar Trader, represented by its Managing Partner V.Kalaiselvi, w/o Velayutham, No.31, Mariamman Kovil Street, Pudupet, Puducherry 605 008.

7. Rajeswari ... Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the fair and final order dated 26.08.2025 made in I.A.No.12 of 2025 in O.S.No.197 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Puducherry. For Petitioner(s):

Mr. K.S.Karthik Raja

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking impleadment of the 7 th and 8 th respondent herein as parties to the suit.

2. The petitioners/plaintiffs herein filed a suit in O.S.No.197 of 2012 for declaration, declaring that the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the 2 nd defendant dated 12.02.2008 was null and void and also for direction to the defendants 1 to 5 to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- jointly and severally as compensation towards mental agony suffered by the plaintiffs. Pending suit, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed impleading application seeking to implead the respondents 6 and 7 herein as defendants 7 and 8 in the suit.

3. It is the case of the petitioners/plaintiffs that after filing of the suit, they came to know about the partnership deed entered in the name of the 6 th respondent and the affidavit executed by father in-law of the first petitioner,

namely, Grind Venugopal Chettiar @ R.V.Chettiar in favour of Kalaiselvi, Managing Partner, M/s Vetri Vinayagar Traders, the 6 th respondent herein.

Hence, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the instant amendment petition seeking their impleadment in the suit. It is also stated by the petitioners that the 6 th respondent Firm is functioning in a portion of Item No.2 of the schedule mentioned properties.

4. The prayer in the suit is for declaration, declaring that the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the 2 nd defendant was null and void and for recovery of possession of the properties from the defendants 1 to 5. No relief is sought for against the proposed party. Having regard to the prayer sought for in the plaint, the proposed parties are not at all necessary parties. Further, the proposed parties are not parties to the sale deed sought to be declared as null and void. In such circumstances, their presence will not help the court in any way to decide the controversy involved in the lis. The court below, rightly dismissed the impleading petition, finding no merits and hence, I do not find any error to interfere with the said order.

5. Accordingly, this civil revision petition dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

11. 11. 2025 Internet: yes Index: Yes/No MST

To The Principal Sub Judge, Puducherry.

S.SOUNTHAR J.

MST 11.11.2025