1. The Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the fair and decretal order dated 06.11.2014 made in C.M.P.No.41 of 2013 in A.S.No.240 of 2013 on the file of the XVI Additional City Civil Court (Fast Track Court No.II), Chennai.

2. In both the Civil Revision Petitions, the issues and the parties are one and the same and hence, they are disposed of by this common order.

C.R.P.No.384 of 2015:

3. The petitioners are third parties, first respondent is the plaintiff, respondents 2 and 3 are the defendants 1 & 2, 4th respondent is the fourth defendant and fifth respondent is the third defendant in O.S.No.2976 of 2010. Fifth respondent is the appellant and the respondents 1 to 4 are the respondents in A.S.No.240 of 2013.

C.R.P.No.385 of 2015:

4. Petitioner is the third defendant, first respondent is the plaintiff, respondents 2 to 4 are the defendants 1, 2, 4 and respondents 5 and 6 are the third parties in O.S.No.2976 of 2010. Petitioner is the appellant and respondents 1 to 4 are the respondents in A.S.No.240 of 2013.

5. The parties are referred to as per their ranks in C.R.P.No.385 of 2014.

6. First respondent filed O.S.No.2976 of 2010 for partition against the respondents 1 to 4. After contest, the said suit was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2013. Against the said judgment and decree, the petitioner filed A.S.No.240 of 2013. In the first appeal, the petitioner filed C.M.P.No.41 of 2013 to implead the respondents 5 and 6 as party respondents in the appeal and rank them as defendants 5 and 6 in the suit.

7. According to the petitioner, the property originally belonged to one Murugappa nadar, great grand father of the petitioner and after his death, the property devolved upon his son Natesa Nadar, grand father of the petitioner, after his death, the property devolved upon his son Kuppusamy, father of the petitioner/second respondent herein. The suit property is their ancestral property. As per amendment to Hindu Succession Act, the respondents 5 and 6 has become coparceners along with the second respondent. They are entitled to have 1/3rd share each in the suit property. Second respondent, who is father of the petitioner, respondents 1 and 4 has only 1/3rd share in the suit property. First respondent can claim her share only in 1/3rd share belonging to the second respondent and she is not entitled to claim any share in the entire property.

8. The second respondent filed counter affidavit for himself and third respondent. The respondents 1 and 4 filed separate counter affidavit and adopted the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent. The respondents 1 to 4 denied all the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the above petition and submitted that Natesa Nadar, father of the respondents 2, 5 and 6 died on 19.12.1990 and on the date of death of Natesa Nadar, respondents 5 and 6 were not coparceners. The amendment to Hindu Succession Act came into effect subsequently, therefore respondents 5 and 6 do not have any share and they are not necessary parties to the appeal. The respondents 5 and 6 got married long back and they are not entitled to benefit of Amendment Act. The petitioner has not raised a plea of non joinder of parties in his written statement and therefore, he cannot raise such plea in the appeal. The respondents 5 and 6, if aggrieved, they ought to have filed an application to implead themselves as party defendants in the suit. The petitioner has no right to file a petition to implead them as parties.

9. The respondents 5 and 6 filed counter affidavit and submitted that they inherited the suit property jointly with second respondent. There was no partition of suit property and therefore, having share in the suit property, they are necessary parties and submitted that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary party.

10. The learned Judge considering averments made in the affidavit, counter affidavit and materials on record, dismissed the petition holding that the respondents 5 and 6 wer