G.Varadharajan(Died) v. S.Pradeep

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.09.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN C.R.P.(MD)No.1519 of 2019 and C.M.P(MD) No.7980 of 2019

1. G.Varadharajan (Died) ... Petitioner/Petitioner/ Proposed 77th Defendant

2. B.Gnanarani

3. R.Bhavani

4. S.Kavitha ... Proposed Petitioners (Petitioners 2 to 4 are brought on record as Legal Heirs of the deceased sole petitioner vide order of this Court dated 17.11.2022 made in C.M.P(MD) No.1262 of 2022 in C.R.P(MD) No.1519 of 2019 -vs1. S.Pradeep .... 1st Respondent/Plaintiff K.S.Thangapandian (Died)

2. K.S.T.Sivarajan Pandian @ Mohanrajapandian

3. K.S.T.Navaneetha Krishnan

4. K.S.T.Shanmugaraja @ Jeyakumar

5. K.S.T.Krishnakumar

6. R.Nagarani

7. K.Brinda

8. A.Praveena 1/9

9. V.Vijayaranga Muthulakshmi

10. V.Sivaramakrishnavijayan

11. V.Jayachandran

12. R.Senthilkumari

13. S.Duruvan

14. C.Mahalakshmi Thai

15. C.Siva Rangaraja

16. C.Siva Nagaraja

17. C.Siva Thaniraja

18. C.Sivakrishnaraja

19. S.Geetharani

20. Sivaponnurani

21. R.N.Jegadeesan

22. N.R.Manivannan

23. L.Kamalakannan

24. N.Palanikumar

25. N.Senthilkumar

26. A.Vairavan

27. G.Muralidharan

28. R.Saravanakumar

29. R.Shanmugam

30. R.Satyamoorthy

31. R.Kalyanasundaram

32. E.Arulsaravanan

33. R.Indra

34. V.Rajiv Kumar

35. V.Pathibakumar

36. N.Suganya

37. N.Muthurenganathavijayan

38. S.Abarna

39. Minor K.Vaishnavai through guardian Krishnakumar D/o. Krishnakumar

40. Minor K.Adhishree through guardian Krishnakumar D/o. Krishnakumar 2/9

41. S.Ramakrishnaveni @ Baby

42. Minor S.Sivaswarya through guardian Geetha Devi, D/o. Geetha Devi

43. G.Chandran

44. R.Sureshkumar

45. P.Radhakrishnan

46. P.Ponnusamy

47. P.Pandiaraj

48. V.Packiam

49. S.G.Natarajan N. Vijayalakshmi (Died)

50. K.Dharmarajan

51. D.Sakthimayil

52. K.Selvarajan

53. S.Jeyapriya

54. L.Soundar

55. S.Ananth

56. S.Gokul

57. Murugan

58. Amtuha

59. Pandiarajan

60. C.Kumaresan

61. Saranya

62. K.Ravi

63. M.Indira

64. Sree Balaji Trading Company Through Sri Iaguvararu Seenivasa Rao Krishnamoorthy and Shree Jalagnathi Shreenivasa Rao, D.No.19-7-668, Sagadigunta, Guntur - 522003, Andhrapradhesh.

3/9

65. Nageswara Rao

66. Kalavai Guruprasad Rao

67. Sri Kothavenkatasubba Rao

68. Sri Kothavenkata Varaprasada Rao

69. Sri Kotha Sambasiva Rao

70. Srinivasa Rao

71. Sri Gundavenkata Narasimha Rao

72. Sree Vijayasai Cotton Traders Through Vemulasambasiva Rao & Atukari Srinivasa Rao and Sri Gundu Venkata Bramhanda Rao, D.No.4-1-15, Ramanna Petta 1st Line, Opp., Rammanna Towers, Guntur - 522 003, Andharapradhesh.

73. Nageswara Rao

74. Sooripeda Srinivasa Rao

75. V.Murugan ... Respondents 2 to 75/Respondents/ Defendants (Respondents 2 to 75 notice not necessary as given up) PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and executable Order dated 13.08.2019 made in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.38 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, FTC, Theni.

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Suriyanarayanan For Respondents : Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan - for R1 : Given up - for R2 to R75 4/9

O R D E R

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and executable Order dated 13.08.2019 made in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.38 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, FTC, Theni.

2. The first petitioner is the proposed 77th defendant and the first respondent is the plaintiff before the Court below.

3. The brief facts which give rise to the present Civil Revision Petition are that the first petitioner is the third party to a partition suit. According to the petitioner, he submits that he is a tenant of the vacant land of the suit in item Nos.6 and 8 of the property, and that they have put up superstructure over the said vacant land and that they have been in possession and enjoyment over the same since 1950. Therefore, he would submit that by virtue of Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, their rights have to be protected. Therefore, they are necessary and proper party in the proceedings. 5/9

4. However, the said contention was objected by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent who is none other than the plaintiff. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would submit that this is only a suit for partition and that the proposed parties are only claiming a tenancy rights. For adjudicating the division of property the tenant's presence is not required, and that the tenant is not a proper and necessary party. Therefore, he prayed to confirm the order passed by the Court below.

5. This Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the first respondent.

6. It is well settled principle of law that necessary party is one without whom no effective decree and judgment could be passed. Similarly, the proper party is one, whose presence is necessary for complete and final adjudication. In this case, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the first respondent, the presence of the proposed parties is no way necessary for deciding the partition suit. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that since the tenant of the vacant site is having right over the 6/9

superstructure, he may be construed as a proper party and prayed to implead in this case.

7. But, this Court is not in a position to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Because, a tenant who claims right under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, would surface only when the owner of the property is filing the eviction suit.

8. Here no eviction is sought for against the proposed party or against the persons those who are occupying in item Nos.6 and 8 of the suit property. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not even a proper party.

9. In view of the above findings, this Court could not find any material irregularity with the order passed by the Court below.

10. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the dismissal of the present impleading application will in no way affects the rights of the petitioners to file a similar application at the final decree 7/9

proceedings. If such an application is filed, the Court below is directed to dispose of the same according to law without being influenced by the observation of this Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

15.09.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ebsi To

1. The Additional District Judge, FTC, Theni.

8/9

C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

ebsi C.R.P(MD)No.1519 of 2019 15.09.2023 9/9