The presence of all co-defendants is essential in partition suits to ensure comprehensive adjudication of property rights; exoneration without full consideration threatens legal integrity.

ORDER :

R. Vijayakumar, J.

Both the revision petitions arise out of two interim orders passed in O.S.No.774 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruchirrappalli.

2. The plaintiff in the above said suit, had filed I.A.No.1040 of 2014 under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C to amend the plaint in order to exonerate the defendants 12 to 16 from the suit. The said application was allowed on 18.10.2016. Challenging the same, CRP(MD).No.652 of 2018 has been filed by the 11^th defendant.

3. The plaintiff in the above said suit had filed I.A.No.276 of 2017 under Section 151 of C.P.C to communicate the order of interim injunction passed on 27.02.2007 made in C.M.A.No.229 of 2003 to the Sub Registrar Srirengam. The said application came to be allowed on 04.04.2017. Challenging the same, defendants 10 and 11 in the above said suit have filed CRP(MD).No.1835 of 2019.

4. Since the issues involved in both the revision petitions are inter connected, they are tagged together and a common order is passed.

(A) Facts leading to the filing of both the revision petitions are as follows:

5. The plaintiff had filed the said suit for the relief of partition and separate possession of his 1/6^th share in the suit schedule property and for separate possession. Pending suit, the plaintiff had filed I.A.No.963 of 2003 for temporary injunction to restrain the defendants and others from encumbering the suit schedule property either by way of sale or by other means pending disposal of the suit. The trial Court by an order dated 11.11.2003 had dismissed the injunction petition. Challenging the same, the plaintiff had filed C.M.A.No.229 of 2003 before the I Additional District Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli. The learned District Judge after considering the submissions made on either side, had dismissed the appeal. However, directed both the parties not to make any further encumbrance from the date of order in appeal till the disposal of the suit.

6. Alleging that the defendants made encumbrances of the property, in violation of the orders in CMA.No.229 of 2003, the plaintiff had filed I.A.No.276 of 2017 under Section 151 of C.P.C praying the trial Court to pass an order to communicate the order in CMA.No.229 of 2003 to the Sub Registrar, Srirengam so that there may not be any further encumbrance by the defendants. The respondents/defendants had not filed their counter and they were set exparte and the trial Court proceeded to allow the application on 04.04.2017 and intimation was sent to the Sub Registrar and it was served on 26.04.2017. In compliance with the said order of the Court, the Sub Registrar had entered the order of the Court in the encumbrance certificate.

7. The plaintiff had further contended that the defendants 12 and 13 had purchased an extent of 26 ½ cents in the suit schedule property on 09.04.2002. Similarly, defendants 14 and 15 have purchased another 26 ½ cents on the same day. The 16^th defendant had purchased an extent of 58 cents on 08.04.2002. The defendants 12 to 16 had approached the plaintiff admitting his 1/6^th share and requested him to release his 1/6^th share in the property purchased by them. Accordingly, the plaintiff had released his 1/6^th share in favour of those defendants confirming their title by filing a compromise memo.

8. I.A.No.1039 of 2014 was filed to record the said compromise memo and the same was allowed. As a consequence, the plaintiff had filed I.A.No.1040 of 2014 to exonerate the defendants 12 to 16 from the array of parties by way of an amendment application. This application was stoutly contested by the 11^th defendant on the ground that there is a collusion between the plaintiff and the defendants 12 to 16. Since the plaintiff did not have any share in the suit schedule property, the question