The main legal point established is that parties seeking impleadment must demonstrate a valid interest in the subject matter of the suit and that their presence is necessary for effective adjudication.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Application has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules read with Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to implead the applicants as a third party / defendants 11 and 12 to the suit in C.S. No.502 of 2008 on the file of this Court (Original side).)

1. The applicants are the third parties and they have filed an application to implead themselves as party to the proceedings in C.S. No.502/2008.

2. The respondents 1-4 / plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration that the suit property belonged to them and also to declare that the settlement deed dated 03.10.2007 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant in respect of the suit properties and the sale deed dated 31.08.2007 executed by defendants 3-8 through 9th defendant in favour of 10th defendant as null and void.

3. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants'' grand father Kuppu Naicker had Kudivaram right over the suit property; one Palaniappa Chetty had tried to evict the applicants'' grandfather and several others by filing a suit in O.S. No.770 to 772 and O.S. No.45 of 2016 and the suits were dismissed; one Venkat Rao and Rajeswara Rao traced their title through the Palaniappa Chetty and they claimed right in the suit schedule property; the applicant’s grandfather Kuppu Naicker died in the year 1936 leaving behind his only son Pakkali Naicker to succeed his property; the applicants and their mother are the legal heirs of Pakkali Naicker and after his demise they are in possession and enjoyment of the property; the plaintiffs have got no right over the suit properties; the suit filed by the first respondent in O.S. No.8050/1997 for declaration of the proceedings of the District Collector dated 28.07.1997 as illegal was dismissed and an appeal has been preferred over the said order; since the applicants are residing in the suit property and they have right over the suit properties, they are just necessary parties to the proceedings and hence they should be impleaded as parties to the suit.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 / plaintiffs submitted that the affidavit supporting the application has been filed by the first applicant and he had not stated any reason as to why he wanted to implead himself to a party to this proceedings.

4.1 The applicant’s grandfather Kuppu Naicker did not have any right in the suit property; one Gopal Naicker had filed a suit in O.S. No.359/1967 and O.S. No.3465/1969 against the third defendant and others and the suits were dismissed on 03.04.1975; in the subsequent suit filed in O.S. No.8050/1997 it is falsely pleaded by the applicants that Gopal Naciker was in possession of the suit property by encroaching the same in the year 1980; it is further stated that Gopal Naicker executed Power of Attorney in his favour and based on the power of attorney the applicants have effected mutation in the revenue records.

4.2 In the proceedings of the Collector dated 28.07.1997 it is held that Gopal Naicker did not have any link with the registered holder of the lands and on that basis the mutations were cancelled on 28.07.1997; the applicants have filed a suit against the Collector to declare that the above order is null and void and the said suit was dismissed on 17.08.2007; a person who had failed to establish his right in the earlier litigation had filed this petition just in order to drag the proceedings and cause inconvenience to the parties who are already litigating before the Court; the applicants have made certain defamatory remarks against the respondents and the respondents reserve their right to file a suit for damages; the applicants filed a suit in O.S. No.8050/1997 on the file of XI Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai and the same was also dismissed; in the written statement filed by the District Collector it has been stated that the applicants were neither the owner nor they were in possession of the suit property; the urban land authorities have th