The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of joint family property and the necessity of impleading necessary or proper parties in a suit.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 06.12.2019 in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.1216 of 2019 on the file of the learned XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai respectively)

Common Order:

1. Since the issues involved in both the petitions are one and the same, they are taken up together and a common order is being passed.

2. The present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 06.12.2019 in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.1216 of 2019 on the file of the learned XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai respectively.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioner in C.R.P.No.1493 of 2020 is the plaintiff and the petitioner in C.R.P.No.649 of 2020 is the defendant in O.S.No.1216 of 2019. The said suit has been filed for partition by dividing the suit schedule property into two equal shares by metes and bounds and allot one such share to the plaintiff, deliver possession of the same and to appoint an advocate commissioner to effect such division, if necessary and to direct the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- Pending suit, I.A.No.1 of 2019 was filed by third party, viz., A.D.Rajagopal naidu/1st respondent, who is none other than the father of the plaintiff and defendant in O.S.No.1216 of 2019 to implead himself as 2nd defendant in the suit. A counter has been filed resisting the said claim by the plaintiff. The said petition was allowed stating that in order to decide the issues in dispute pertaining to the present suit, the said third party is a proper and necessary party. As against the same, the plaintiff and the defendant in O.S.No.1216 of 2019 have come up with the present Revisions. Since the 1st respondent died, the other legal heirs were brought on record as respondents 3 to 6 in both the Revisions.

4. The learned counsels for the petitioners would submit that the trial court failed to consider the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.289 of 2003 by the Subordinate Court, Ranipet at Vellore, which was later, confirmed in A.S.No.7 of 2012 by the Principal District Judge, Vellore, wherein it was clearly held that the 1st respondent herein is not entitled to a share in the present suit property and the same was confirmed by this Court in S.A.No.736 of 2014.

5. The learned counsels for the petitioners also submit that the trial court failed to look into the legal principle enunciated under Order I Rule 10 CPC, where only the necessary or proper parties have to be impleaded in order to enable the court effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit and in this case, the 1st respondent is neither the necessary nor a proper party to the suit.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the suit property was purchased in the year 1987 and the 1st respondent has not exercised any right over the property for more than 32 years, now, has come forward with false claim ignoring the earlier rejection of his claim, only for the purpose of dragging the suit. That apart, the learned counsel has relied on the Judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in (1999) 4 Supreme Court Cases 243 [Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs. Rochiram Nagdeo).

7. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 6 that the deceased - 1st respondent is the beneficial owner of the suit property and executed the sale deed on 27.12.1987 in favour of his son and daughter, viz., petitioners in these revisions.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 6 also contends that the petitioner in CRP No.1493 of 2020 filed the suit in O.S.No.289 of 2003 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipet for partition and 1/3rd share in the properties mentioned therein under the Schedules A, B and C and for permanent injunction restraining 1st respondent from alienating or encumbering the said suit pr