The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to protect the rights of the revision petitioner to challenge the validity of the settlement deed in the main appeal, while confirming the order bringing all legal representatives of deceased Krishnan on record.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to allow this Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order dated 22.08.2013 made in M.P.No. 2864 of 2008 in N.T.A.No.53 of 2001 by the learned III Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to allow this Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order dated 22.08.2013 made in I.A.No.5268 of 2005 in N.T.A.No.53 of 2001 by the learned III Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to allow this Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order dated 22.08.2013 made in M.P.No. 160 of 2007 in N.T.A.No.53 of 2001 by the learned III Court of Small Causes, Chennai.)

Common Order

1. The father of the second petitioner in CRP.No.4528 of 2013 and sole petitioner in CRP.Nos.4529 & 4530 of 2013 filed a suit in O.S.No.1247 of 1997 on the file of IX Small Causes Court, Chennai seeking a money decree directing the first respondent in CRP.No.4528 of 2013 and sole respondent in CRP.Nos.4529 & 4530 of 2013 namely Raja (his elder son) to pay a sum of Rs.5,635/- with 24% interest towards damages for use and occupation of the suit B schedule property and the same was resisted by said Raja by filing written statement.

2. The said suit was decreed directing the defendant therein to pay a sum of Rs.5,635/- together with at the rate of 12% from the date of the suit till the date of decree and 6% interest thereafter.

3. Aggrieved by the same, defendant therein viz., Raja filed an appeal in NTA.No.53 of 2001 on the file of the Chief Court of Small Causes, Madras and the same is pending.

4. When the above appeal was pending, the second petitioner in CRP.No.4528 of 2013 and sole petitioner in CRP.Nos.4529 & 4530 of 2013 viz., Manickam (younger son of Krishnan) filed an application for impleading him as a second respondent in the appeal on the ground that his father V.M.Krishnan (sole respondent in the appeal) settled the suit property in his favour by a settlement deed dated 19.09.2001.

5. The said application was resisted by his brother above said Raja(first respondent in CRP.No.4528/2013 and sole respondent in CRP.Nos.4529 & 4530/2013) by filing a detailed counter. He questioned the validity of the settlement deed on various grounds including the right of the settlor to settle the same as he was not an exclusive owner of the subject matter of settlement deed. Further it was also claimed by the respondent that the settlement deed was not produced before the trial Court till the pronouncement of the judgment and hence, it was stemmed out of malafides. The trial Court had dismissed the said application mainly on the ground that the revision petitioner Manickam failed to produce the same before the trial Court and it established his malafide intention to grab the suit property. Aggrieved by the same, CRP.No.4529 of 2013 has been filed by Manickam.

6. The said Manickam also filed another petition in M.P.No.160 of 2007 before the Appellate Court, for marking certified copy of settlement deed dated 19.09.2001, certified copy of order in CMA.Nos.31 & 32 of 2004 dated 08.07.2004 and certified copy of order in I.A.No.11757 of 2000 in O.S.No.1951 of 1997 dated 04.04.2001 as a document in M.P.No.5268 of 2005. The same was also opposed by contesting respondent Raja by filing counter questioning the validity of the settlement deed . The said application was dismissed by the Appellate Court mainly on the ground that settlement deed was not brought to the knowledge of the trial Court before disposal of the suit, though it allegedly came to be executed pending suit. Aggrieved by the same, Manickam filed CRP.No.4530 of 2013.

7. The contesting respondent Raja filed an application in M.P.No.2864 of 2008 before the Appellate Court to bring on record the petitioner and respondents 2 to 7 in CRP.Nos.4528 of 2013 as legal representatives of his decease