Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
Selvaraj & Others - Appellant
Versus
Sundararajan & Others - Respondents
C.R.P. (PD) No.923 of 2003
Decided On : 15 April 2005
Order 23 Rule 1-A C.P.C - Transposition of Third Plaintiff - Sec.151 C.P.C - [1985 (1) M.L.J. 420, 1990 (1) L.W. 209] - The court discussed the transposition of the Third Plaintiff as the Third Defendant under Order 23 Rule 1-A C.P.C and the invocation of inherent powers under Sec.151 C.P.C. The court referred to the decision in Vasantha Ammal vs. V.P.Dhanaraj (1990 (1) L.W. 209) and emphasized the wide discretion of the court to transpose necessary parties for complete adjudication, especially when a party has joined with the opposing party. The court held that the Trial Court should have invoked its inherent powers to allow the transposition of the Third Plaintiff as the Third Defendant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over possession and enjoyment of suit properties between the Plaintiffs and Defendants. The Third Plaintiff, initially a party to the Plaintiffs, turned around and deposed in favor of the Defendants during the trial.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Trial Court erred in dismissing the Petition for transposition of the Third Plaintiff as the Third Defendant and held that the transposition should have been allowed in the interest of justice.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Third Plaintiff, who had joined with the Defendants during the trial, should be transposed as the Third Defendant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the wide discretion of the court to transpose necessary parties for complete adjudication, especially when a party has joined with the opposing party. It held that the Trial Court should have invoked its inherent powers to allow the transposition of the Third Plaintiff as the Third Defendant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the Civil Revision Petition was allowed. The Trial Court was directed to afford sufficient opportunities to the Plaintiffs to take steps for consequential amendment and dispose of the same in accordance with the law.
(Civil Revision Petition filed under Sec.115 C.P.C against the order dated 07.02.2003 passed by the Additional District Munsif, Sankarankoil in I.A.No.740 of 2002 in O.S.No.595 of 1996, as stated therein.)
This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the Order of Additional District Munsif, Sankarankoil dated 07.02.2003 passed in I.A.No.740 of 2002 in O.S.No.595 of 1996, dismissing the Petition filed under Order 23 Rule 1-A C.P.C to transpose the Third Plaintiff as Third Defendant. Plaintiffs 1, 2 and 4 are the Revision Petitioners.
2. The Plaintiffs 1 to 3 and one late Krishnan – Husband of the Fourth Plaintiff – Mercy are Brothers. Their Father – Muniyandi alias Subbiyah and one Shanmugathammal (Paternal Grandmother of the Defendants 1 and 2) have jointly purchased the Suit Properties. The said Shanmugathammal and her Sons Pandi and Srinivasan have sold their share of the Property to the said Muniyandi alias Subbiyah by the Sale Deed dated 10.02.1967 and 11.05.1969. Defendants are the Son and Daughter of one Chinnasamy. The said Chinnasamy is the Son of Shanmugathammal. No share had been allotted to the said Chinnasamy in the Suit Properties. Though no share was allotted to Chinnasamy, considering the relationship of the Parties, Item No.2 has been given to the said Chinnasamy. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the Fourth Plaintiff – Wife of Krishnan are in separate possession and enjoyment of Item No.1 of the Suit Properties. The Plaintiffs have perfected their Title to the Suit Property by adverse possession also. In recognition of their possession, separate patta was also issued to the Plaintiffs. But, in the Updating Survey Scheme, the Defendants have misrepresented the fact and have obtained the joint patta as if they are in joint possession and enjoyment of Item No.1 of the Suit Properties. Hence the Plaintiffs have filed the Suit regarding Suit Item No.1 for Permanent Injunction.
3. Denying the averments in the Plaint, the Defendants have filed the Written Statement denying the absolute right of the Plaintiffs. According to the Defendants, D-1 and his Mother Madathi Ammal has sold their 7/8th share to the Second Defendant-Chinnathai by the Sale Deed dated 28.05.1996 as the Female Heir of Deceased-Chinnasamy. The Second Defendant-Chinnathai is entitled to 1/8th share. Thus, the Second Defendant has Right and Title to the Suit Properties. Suppressing all these aspects, the Plaintiffs have filed the Suit. On the strength of the Interim Injunction obtained by them, the Plaintiffs have also lodged Police Complaint and are harassing the Defendants and the Plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief sought for.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, relevant issues were framed. The parties have adduced evidence. The Third Plaintiff was examined as Witness on the side of the Defendants 1 and 2. In his evidence, the Third Plaintiff has denied the Title of the Plaintiffs and has stated that only the Defendants 1 and 2 are in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Properties.
5. I.A.No.740 of 2002: -
Alleging that the Third Plaintiff has colluded with Defendants 1 and 2, the Plaintiffs 1,2 and 4 have filed this Petition under Order 23 Rule 1-A C.P.C to transpose the Third Plaintiff as Third Defendant. The Revision Petitioners have alleged that the Third Plaintiff has joined hands with the Defendants and hence the Plaintiffs are unable to further conduct the Suit along with the Third Plaintiff.
6. The Defendants 1 and 2 / Respondents 1 and 2 have not filed any Counter Statement. But, the Third Plaintiff / Third Respondent has filed the Counter Statement, denying his signature in the Plaint and in the Vakalat filed along with the Plaint. According to him, his signatures in the Plaint and Vakalat are forged and that he has not joined with the Plaintiffs to file the Suit. Further, it is alleged that if the Third Plaintiff is to be transposed as Third Defendant, the nature of the Suit and cause of action would entirely change. Upon
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
