S.Balasubramanyam, v. Sree Meenakshisundareswararetc

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Thirteenth day of June Two Thousand and Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice P.VELMURUGAN IN AS(MD)No.271 oF 2004 1 S.BALASUBRAMANYAM 2 K.RAJALAKSHMI 3 JANSI RAJENDRAN 4 M.RAJALAKSHMI 5 N.MURUGESAN 6 SRINIVASAN 7 S.DHANALAKSHMI ... PETITIONERS/PROPOSED RESPONDENTS No.40 TO 46 Vs 1 SREE MEENAKSHISUNDARESWARARE, DEVASATHANAM MADURAI REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HAVING HIS OFFICE AT SOUTH ADI STREET, MADURAI 2 RAMU AMMAL 3 MEENAKSHI 4 SETHULAKSHMI 5 SOORYA GANDHI AMMAL 6 E.M.SUBRAMANIAN 7 PANNEERSELVAN 8 NITHAYANANTHAM 9 C.BALAKRISHNAN 1/4

10 E.SUBRAMANIAN 11 S.SUNDARAM 12 VENKADACHALAPATHY 13 THANGARAJ 14 RENGARAJ 15 ILANGOVAN 16 KUPPASAMY 17 KANAGARAJ 18 MANI 19 SANKARRAJ 20 PAULRAJ 21 VENKATASAMY 22 SUNDARA PANDIAN 23 RAMAMOORTHY 24 PREM RAJ 25 BALASUBRAMANIAN 26 AZHAGARSAMY 27 N.PALANIAPPAN 28 C.GANESAN 29 SUDALAI 30 KANAKAVEL 31 MUTHUKRISHNAN 32 MURUGAN 33 RAMASAMY 34 RADHAKRISHNAN 35 K.POTHI 2/4

36 BALASUBRAMANIAN 37 NAVANEETHA KRISHNAN 38 RADHAKRISHNAN 39 SOLAIMALAI 40 RAJARAM ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to allow the petitioners to implead the proposed respondents No.40 to 46 in the first appeal in As.No.271 of 2004 on the file of this Honourable Court.

PRAYER IN AS(MD)No.271 of 2004:

To prefer this Memorandum of Regular appeal against the Judgment and Decree of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai dated 30.04.1985 and made in O.S.No.12/1984.

ORDER : This petition coming up for orders on this day, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.T.LAJAPATHI ROY, Advocate for the petitioners, the court made the following order:- This petition is filed to implead the proposed respondents in the appeal.

2.Admittedly, the proposed respondents are not the parties to the suit and they are third parties.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners purchased the property from his vendor, after the suit was decreed and that sofar, the sale deed has not been registered, which means the property has not been sofar conveyed to the petitioners.

4.The petitioners are neither proper parties nor necessary to arrive at an effective decision in the appeal. The petitioners can work out their remedy from their vendor in the manner known to law. Hence, this Court finds that the petitioners are not necessary parties in the appeal. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.

sd/- 13/06/2022 / TRUE COPY / / /2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

3/4

TO THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, MADURAI.

ORDER

IN IN AS(MD)No.271 oF 2004 Date :13/06/2022 SA/VR/SAR.3/16.06.2022/4P/2C 4/4