A judgment must contain a concise statement of the case, points for determination, and reasons for the decision; failure to comply renders it invalid.

ORDER :

N.Sathish Kumar, J.

Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2011 in O.S.No.142 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri District and declare all consequential orders and documents executed in pursuance to the said judgment and decree as null and void.

This revision has been filed seeking to set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.10.20211 in O.S.No.142 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri District under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the decree and judgment has been obtained fraudulently, that apart, the decree and judgment contains only one line order and the judgment does not satisfy the requirements of Order XX Rules 4 and 5 of C.P.C.,

2. Since, the impleading 8th respondent claims to be a purchaser from the first respondent has filed C.M.P.No.26123 of 2024 for impleadment in this revision, this Court is of the view that the impleading petitioner is necessary for proper adjudication of this revision petition. Hence, the impleading petition is ordered, accordingly.

3. Brief background of the case is as follows:

3.a. The case of revision petitioner is that one Gowriammal has filed a suit in O.S.No.132 of 1986 against Sambasaivam for declaration and various other reliefs in respect of the suit properties. The suit was decreed in her favour on 14.08.1986. Thereafter, another suit in O.S.No.75 of 2011 was filed by the Gowriammal against her husband and his second wife and children before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli for declaration and permanent injunction. In that suit, a compromise decree was obtained on 29.11.2002. Thereafter, all of them sold the property to P.V.Chandran vide document dated 17.05.2010. The said P.V.Chandran sold the same vide sale deeds dated 15.07.2013 bearing Doc.Nos.863 & 864 of 2013 in favour of the petitioner and his wife, who are doctors by profession.

3.b. When the matter stood thus, the said Sambasivam, who has suffered a decree in the year 1986 in O.S.No.132 of 1986, suppressing the subsequent transactions had entered into an unregistered agreement dated 16.06.2010 with the first respondent herein and fraudulently thereafter, the first respondent filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.142 of 2010 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri, wherein, exparte collusive decree has been passed and further the Trial Court has not even gone into the matter and one line order has been passed. For setting aside the exparte order, the present revision has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the property has been purchased by Sambasivam from the petitioner's predecessor in title, Gowriammal in the year 1972. That sale has been challenged by Gowriammal in the suit in O.S.No.132 of 1986 and the same was decreed on 14.08.1986. Thereafter, another suit in O.S.No.75 of 2011 was filed by the Gowriammal and a compromise decree was passed on 29.11.2002. Thereafter, properties were sold to one P.V.Chandran vide document dated 17.05.2010. The said P.V.Chandran sold the same to the revision petitioner. However, Sambasivam, who has suffered a decree in the year 1986 in O.S.No.132 of 1986, suppressing the subsequent transactions had entered into an unregistered agreement dated 16.06.2010 with the first respondent herein for sale of property fixing three months time. However, the first respondent had filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.142 of 2010 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri, even before the expiry of the three months time and without any pre-suit notice, the defendant was conveniently set exparte and one line order has been passed and the suit has been decreed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the decree has been obtained collusively.

5. Whereas, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted t