Vairamuthu, v. Anthony Mettilda
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.01.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI C.R.P(MD)No.158 of 2017 (PD) and C.M.P(MD)No.647 of 2017 Vairamuthu .. Revision Petitioner/ Petitioner/ Defendant Vs.
1.Anthony Mettilda ..1st Respondent/1st Respondent/Plaintiff 2.S.A.Annamalai 3.A.Annamalai 4.S.A.B.A.Kothai Aachi 5.Jawahar Palaniyappan 6.Vijayalakshmi @ Lakshmi 7.Krishnan 8.S.A.S.R.M.C.Nachammai Aachi 9.S.A.R.M.C.Chandramouly Chettiyar 10.A.Meenakshi Aachi 11.Seethalakshmi 11.S.A.S.R.M.Annamalai 13.S.A.A.Ramakrishnan ..Respondents 2 to 13/Respondents 2 to 13/ Proposed Defendants PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 07.11.2016 in I.A.No.617 of 2011 in O.S.No.153 of 2003 passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District and allow the same by allowing this Civil Revision Petition. For Petitioner :
Mr. K.Baalasundharam
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition to set aside the order, dated 07.11.2016 in I.A.No.617 of 2011 in O.S.No.153 of 2003 passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.
2.The petitioner is defendant. The first respondent is the plaintiff. The first respondent filed suit in O.S.No.153 of 2003 before the Sub Court, Pudukkottai for partition of suit property and to allot 95/100 share to her. The petitioner filed written statement on 19.12.2003 and contested the suit. In the suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.617 of 2011 for impleading the respondents 2 to 13 as defendants 2 to 13 in the suit. According to petitioner, he purchased the entire property from one Yogi Ramaiah by the deed of sale, dated 19.01.1998 on the representation by Yogi Ramaiah that he is the absolute owner of the suit property and the same was allotted to him in family partition. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know of pendency of suit in O.S.No.413 of 1994 filed by his vendor Yogi Ramaiah against second respondent herein and others.
The petitioner himself got impleaded as defendant in the said suit. Yogi Ramaiah died during pendency of the suit and his legal heirs were not impleaded. The said suit in O.S.No.413 of 1994 was dismissed as abated. The petitioner in the written statement itself has stated that other sharers as alleged by the first respondent, are necessary parties to the suit. The first respondent has not taken any steps to implead them. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present I.A.No.617 of 2011 to implead the respondents 2 to 13 as defendants 2 to 13 in the suit.
3.The first respondent filed counter and denied all the averments made by the petitioner. The first respondent stated that the petitioner filed the present application only to drag on the proceedings. The petitioner was set ex-parte on number of occasions and subsequently on filing petition, the said ex-parte orders were set aside. Even in this application, petitioner has not taken any steps to serve the proposed respondents for more than 5 years. The suit property belonged to 10 persons. The first respondent purchased 95/100 shares from 9 persons through their power agent. Petitioner purchased only 5% of the property from one sharer Yogi Ramaiah. The issue in the suit is only to decide whether the petitioner is entitled to 95/100 shares based on the sale deed, dated 19.01.1998 purchased from Yogi Ramaiah.
In the circumstances, respondents 2 to 13 are not necessary parties to the suit and prayed for dismissal of the said application. 4.The learned Judge considering the averments made in the affidavit and counter affidavit and upon considering the materials on record dismissed the application holding that it is for the first respondent/plaintiff to decide the parties to the suit, proposed defendants even after service of the notice have not appeared before the Court and parties are claiming right through sale deed.
5.Against the said order of dismissal, the petitioner has filed the present civil Revision Petition.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit is for partition and all the parties in the suit are in the nature of plaintiff and the learned Judge erred in holding that respondent as a plaintiff only entitled to decide the parties to the suit. The learned Judge failed to consider that all the sharers are necessary parties to the suit.
7.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also perused the entire materials on record. 8.The first respondent filed suit for partition and for allotment of 95/100 sharers to her. According to the first respondent, she purchased the property from 9 sharer who had 95/100 sharers in the property through their power agent. Yogi Ramaiah from whom petitioner purchased the property had only 5% shares in the suit property.
9.According to the petitioner, he purchased entire property from Yogi Ramaiah on the representation that he is the absolute owner of the suit property. Now, as first respondent is claiming that she purchased 95/100 shares from 9 sharers and Yogi Ramaiah is only one of the 10 sharers in the property, the respondents 2 to 13 are also owners of the property, they are all necessary parties. The said contention is untenable. Both the petitioner and first respondent are claiming title to the suit through the sale deed on the ground that they purchased the properties. In the circumstances, it is for the first respondent to prove that she purchased 95/100 shares from the persons having shares in the suit property.
Similarly, it is for the petitioner to prove that Yogi Ramaiah is absolute owner of the suit property and he has obtained valid title to the suit property. Both the parties have to substantiate their case by letting in acceptable evidence. The learned Judge properly exercised his jurisdiction conferred on him and there is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court.
10.In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
11.The suit is of the year 2003, the learned Sub Judge, Pudukottai is directed to dispose the suit in O.S.No.153 of 2003 as expeditiously as possible, in any event, not later than 30th April, 2017. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(c) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar
To The Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai.
+1cc to M/s.K.Balasundaram, Advocate SR.NO.3922 am sm:CM-MSA:8.2.2017:4P/3C C.R.P(MD)No.158 of 2017 (PD) 24.01.2017