Marimuthu (Died) vs P. Appavoo - 2022 Supreme(Mad) 3705

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Mad) 3705

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Marimuthu (Died) – Appellant
Versus
P. Appavoo – Respondent
C.R.P. No. 119 of 2013, C.R.P. No. 1842 of 2015, M.P. No. 1 of 2013, M.P. No. 1 of 2015
Decided On : 15-12-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P. Valliappan.
For the Respondent: N. Manokaran.

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 227 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 6 Rule 17 – Order 22 Rule 4 – Order 1 Rule 10 – Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside fair and decreetal order of learned Principal District, passed in I.A – Held, Hence judgments cited by learned counsel appearing for petitioners are not helpful to case on hand – Therefore, plaintiffs were constrained to file petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. stating that third defendant viz. deceased petitioner is only the class I legal heir of deceased defendants 1 and 2 and sought for amendment to that effect – Further, amendment sought for by plaintiffs would not cause any prejudice to defendants 3 and 4 – Hence Court below rightly allowed petition and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in order passed by Courts below – Civil Revision Petition dismissed.

ORDER :

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order of the learned Principal District Munsif at Tiruchengode, dated 30.11.2012 passed in I.A. No. 671 of 2012 in O.S. No. 347 of 2004.

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order of the learned Principal District Munsif at Tiruchengode, dated 18.02.2015 passed in I.A. No. 26 of 2015 in O.S. No. 347 of 2004.

1. The Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P. No. 119 of 2013 is directed as against fair and decreetal order dated 30.11.2012 passed in I.A. No. 671 of 2012 in O.S. No. 347 of 2004, on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Thiruchengode, thereby allowing the petition to amend the plaint and the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P. No. 1842 of 2015 is directed as against fair and decreetal order dated 18.02.2015, passed in I.A. No. 26 of 2015 in O.S. No. 347 of 2004, on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Thiruchengode, thereby dismissing the petition to stay all further proceedings in O.S. No. 347 of 2004.

2. The first deceased respondent and another deceased Ramasamy Gounder filed a suit in O.S. No. 396 of 1991 on the file of the Sub Court, Sankari, against the deceased petitioner and two others for specific performance on the strength of the agreement for sale dated 21.01.1991, executed by the deceased defendants 1 and 2. After filing the suit, the defendants 1 and 2 died and the plaintiffs were not taken any steps to bring their legal representatives on records. Therefore, the said suit was dismissed as against them. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed memo and the suit was restored against the deceased petitioner alone who has shown as third defendant in the suit. The said suit was transferred and renumbered as O.S. No. 374 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thirucehngode.

3. Thereafter the first plaintiff viz. first deceased respondent filed petition in I.A. No. 603 of 2004 to implead the second respondent herein as the legal representative of the deceased second defendant and the same was allowed. Again the deceased first respondent filed application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. to amend the plaint thereby seeking relief of specific performance as against the third defendant viz. the deceased petitioner herein. It was allowed and aggrieved by the same, the deceased first petitioner filed the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P. No. 119 of 2013. While pending the said C.R.P. No. 119 of 2013, the first deceased petitioner filed stay petition in I.A. No. 26 of 2015 and the same was dismissed by the Court below, as against which, he filed another Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P. No. 1842 of 2015.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that originally the suit was filed as against three defendants for specific performance. The plaintiffs averred that the first and second defendants executed agreement for sale on 21.01.1991, in respect of the suit property for the total sale consideration of Rs. 90,000/- and also they received major sale consideration to the tune of Rs. 80,000/- as advance. Thereafter, they failed to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, after receipt of the balance sale consideration within a period of one year from the date of agreement.

4.1. The plaintiffs further averred that the third defendant viz. the first deceased petitioner was added as a party to know the transactions between the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 and to get a binding decision upon him. Further averred that the third defendant was attempted to get some kind of deeds to be executed by the defendants 1 and 2 and as such, the third defendant was added as necessary party, in order to avoid the question of without notice by the third defendant and to apprise him about the transactions had by the plaintiffs. Therefore, he was added as a formal party to the suit.