Malayammal, v. K. Mariaselvam

O R D E R This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner as against the impugned order dated 17.12.2021 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.S.No.199 of 2019.

¶2The suit in O.S.No.199 of 2019 was filed by the first respondent/plaintiff for the relief of specific performance of the contract. During the pendency of the above suit, the petitioner/third party has moved an application to implead herself as a defendant in the suit by stating that she is in possession of the 2nd and 3rd suit schedule properties and her husband built a house in the 3rd suit schedule property and was doing agricultural work in the adjacent land. After the death of the petitioner's husband on 04.11.2006, she is continuing to do the agricultural work and is living in the said house built by her husband in the 3rd suit schedule property.

¶3It is submitted that there is no relevance between the suit properties and the second respondent/defendant Sangam is a bogus one. It is further submitted that in the plaint filed by the first respondent/plaintiff, he has admitted that the possession of the suit properties is in the hands of the petitioner. Therefore, it is necessary Page No. 2 of 8 for the petitioner to implead herself as a defendant in the suit. It is further contention of the petitioner that the patta of the 2nd and 3rd suit schedule properties was issued in favour of her husband Muthiah and after death of Muthiah, it was transferred in the name of the petitioner. It is submitted that since the second respondent/defendant has tried to dispose of the petitioner from the suit schedule properties, she sent a legal notice to the second respondent/defendant Sangam on 16.07.2019. Hence, the petitioner/third pary prayed for impleading herself as a defendant in the suit.

¶4The same was resisted on the side of the first respondent/plaintiff by way of counter stating that the second respondent/defendant executed a Sale Agreement in respect of the suit schedule properties in favour of the first respondent/plaintiff on 06.04.2017 and since the second respondent/defendant failed to perform as per the contract, he was constrained to file the suit for specific performance. It is further submitted that there is no relevance between the suit schedule properties and the petitioner/third party and therefore, there is no necessity to add the petitioner as a party in the suit.

¶5The Trial Court after considering the petition affidavit and counter affidavit and arguments advanced by the respective counsels, dismissed the Page No. 3 of 8 I.A. filed by the petitioner/third party on the ground that in a suit for specific performance, no relief can be granted to the petitioner as she is not a party to the suit. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner/third party has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶6The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/third party would contend that a collusive suit has been filed between the first respondent/plaintiff and the second respondent/defendant. The 2nd and 3rd suit schedule properties are in possession of the petitioner/third party and patta was issued in favour of the petitioner's husband which was later transferred in the name of the petitioner after the death of her husband. It is submitted that the second respondent/defendant is illegally trying to evict the petitioner from the suit schedule properties.

¶7The learned counsel for the petitioner/third party would further submit that in the order of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.17059 of 2019 dated

05.08.2019 clearly shows the possession of the petitioner/third party in the suit schedule properties. The Trial Court has wrongly concluded that Ex.P1 to P18 did not show the petitioner/third party as the owner of the suit schedule properties. The petitioner/third party has sufficient documents to establish the Page No. 4 of 8 possession of the suit schedule properties. Hence, the order passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside.

¶8The learned counsel for the petitioner/third party would further contend that the purchaser may be impleaded in a suit for specific performance when valid reasons were raised on the side of the purchaser. To support of his contention, the leaned counsel for the petitioner/third party relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Thomson Press (India) Limited Vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited and Others, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 397.

¶9On the other side, the learned counsel for the second respondent/defendant Sangam would submit that the petitioner/third party cannot be impleaded in the suit for specific performance as the dispute is only between the first respondent/plaintiff and the second respondent/defendant. He would further submit that an alternative remedy is available for the petitioner/third party to file a fresh suit in this regard.

¶10The learned counsel for the second respondent/defendant Sangam would further submit that the petitioner/third party is a land grabber and the Page No. 5 of 8 patta issued in the name of the petitioner's husband which was later transferred to the name of the petitioner/third party, stood cancelled by virtue of the order of the Tashildar, Palayamkottai dated 28.02.2017. Therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to implead herself as a defendant in the suit. The patta now stands in the name of the second respondent/defendant Sangam.

¶11To support of his above contentions, the learned counsel for the second respondent/defendant Sangam has relied upon the following two decisions:- i. C.D.Sanjay Raj Vs. Sri. N.Anandha Krishnan and others, reported in 2022 AIR CC 2231 : 2022 (3) AIR Kar R 425. ii. Kaliyaperumal Vs. Selvaraj and others, reported in 2020 AIR (Madras) 192 : 2020 (4) Civ CC 552.

¶12Heard on both side. Records perused.

¶13Relying the principles laid down by the Karnataka High Court in C.D.Sanjay Raj case cited supra by the learned counsel for the second respondent/defendant Sangam and the present legal position, this Court has come to a conclusion that in the suit for a specific contract filed by the first Page No. 6 of 8 respondent/plaintiff, the impleadment of the petitioner/proposed party is not necessary as the petitioner/proposed party is not a party to the Sale Agreement entered into between the first respondent/plaintiff and the second respondent/defendant. Moreover, the first respondent/plaintiff being dominus litis and in absence of legal necessity cannot be forced to add the petitioner as a defendant in the suit. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court and the impugned order of the Trial Court is confirmed. Thus, the present Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶14With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No cost. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

11.09.2023 Internet : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No jen To The III Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli. Page No. 7 of 8 C.R.P.(Mi)oNo.1161oofo2023 K.GOVINDARAJANoTHILAKAVADI,oJ. jen C.R.P.(MD)oNo.1161oofo2023 andoC.M.P.(MD)oNo.5598oofo2023

11.09.2023 PageoNo.o8oofo8

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.09.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI and C.M.P.(MD) No.5598 of 2023 Malayammal ... Petitioner Vs. 1.K.Mariselvam 2.Vinobha Bave Sarvodaya Samuka Seva Sangam Reg. No.3/57 Through its President Thiru Nagarajan S/o.Arunachalam, Duwaraga, Door No.8/54 Kamala Nagar, Ramapuram Puthu Giramam, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kaniyakumari District. ... Respondents Prayer:- This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No. 1 of 2020 in O.S.No.199 of 2019 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, dated 17.12.2021. For Petitioner : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer For R1 : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar For R2 : Mr.K.Dinesh Page No. 1 of 8