Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 22851
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.R.SWAMINATHAN
G.MUTHU VIJAYAKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
N.SUBRAMANIAN – Respondent
S.A (MD)No.262 of 2017
Mr.V.K.Vijayaragavan for Appellant; Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar for R3 R1, R2, R4 and R5 exparte R6 – removed from the array of parties
A decree in a specific performance suit is not binding on parties who were necessary but not impleaded, affirming their ownership rights.
Headnote:
Property - Ownership - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 19, Order 1 Rule 10 - The court held that the decree in a prior suit was not binding on the plaintiffs as they were necessary parties not impleaded, thus affirming their ownership rights.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought a declaration of ownership and recovery of possession of a property, which was contested by the third defendant who claimed to be a bona fide purchaser. The trial court dismissed the suit, leading to an appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs were necessary parties in the prior suit and that the decree from that suit could not bind them since they were not impleaded. The plaintiffs had valid title through a registered sale deed.
Issues: Whether the decree in the prior suit was competent without the necessary parties and whether the courts erred in accepting the ex parte decree to non-suit the plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that necessary parties must be included in a suit for specific performance, and a decree against absent necessary parties is not binding.
Final Decision: The second appeal is allowed, and the judgments of the lower courts are set aside.
JUDGEMENT
The 3rd plaintiff in O.S No.26 of 2003 on the file of the First Additional Sub Court, Trichy is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit was for declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit property and for consequential relief of recovery of possession. Though five persons were shown as defendants, the third defendant (Krishnaveni) alone contested the suit. Based on rival pleadings, as many as seven issues were framed. The first plaintiff examined herself as PW.1. One Ganesan was examined as PW.2. The third defendant examined herself as DW.1. One Kurothungan was examined as DW.2. Exs.A1 to A33 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs. Exs.B1 to B11 were marked on side of the defendants. After consideration of the evidence on record, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 12.11.2010 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed A.S No.74 of 2011 before the Principal District Judge, Trichirappalli. The first appellate court concurred with the view taken by the trial court and dismissed the appeal on 31.08.2012. Challenging the same, this second appeal has been filed. 2.The second appeal was admitted on 29.06.2017 on the following substantial questions of law :
“1.Whether the decree passed in O.S No.162 of 1998 is competent, since the plaintiff whose presence in the suit is necessary in transferring the title is not arrayed as a defendant ?
2.Whether the courts below have erred in accepting the exparte decree granted in O.S No.162 of 1998 by the Sub Court, Trichy to non-suit the plaintiffs?
3. When the 2nd defendant did not prove Ex.B3, dated 09.06.1997 in the suit filed by the plaintiffs, whether his case of purchase of suit property on that basis tenable?”
3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds of appeal and called upon this Court to answer the substantial questions of law in favour of the appellant and set aside the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below and grant relief as prayed for.
3.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the third defendant submitted that the impugned judgments and decrees are well reasoned and that they do not warrant any interference.
4.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the evidence on record. The suit property belonged to one Subramanian, the first defendant. He had purchased the same vide Ex.A3 sale deed dated 31.05.1990. Subramanian executed Ex.A1 power of attorney in favour of Ganesan (PW.2) on 18.10.1997. On 21.01.1998, Ganesan in his capacity as power agent of Subramanian executed sale deed (Ex.A6) conveying the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs.
5.The case of the plaintiffs is that when the property was conveyed to them, it was in the occupation of tenants of Subramanian. The plaintiffs wanted the tenants to vacate. Instead of doing so, the tenants handed over possession to Ravichandran (D2). The plaintiffs were taking steps to persuade the occupants to vacate the suit property. They issued legal notices and filed caveat petitions. They got the revenue records as well as the assessment registers in respect of the suit property mutated in their favour. Then the plaintiffs became aware that Ravichandran had obtained a specific performance decree in his favour in O.S No.162 of 1998 on the file of the Sub Court, Trichy and on that basis sold the suit property in favour of the third defendant on 23.11.2000 (Ex.B2). Hence, they found it necessary to institute O.S No.26 of 2003 on the file of the First Additional Sub Court, Trichy seeking the aforementioned reliefs.
6.The defendants 1 and 2 remained ex-parte. The third defendant filed written statement controverting the assertions of the plaintiffs. She submitted that she is a bonafide purchaser for consideration. She was not aware of the so called rights of the plaintiffs over the suit property. The sale transaction in favour of the plaintiffs was not reflected in th
