BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 23.02.2024 Pronounced on : 18.04.2024 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR C.R.P.(MD)No.1667 of 2019 and C.M.P.(MD)No.8633 of 2019 Perumal Maniam (Died)

1. Gowthamy

2. Muniyandi ... Petitioners Vs.

1. Sathiya Priya

2. Loganathan ... Respondents Prayer : This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 05.08.2016 passed in I.A.No.184 of 2015 in A.S.No.56 of 2014 on the file of Principal District Judge, Dindigul.

For Petitioners : Mr.M.P.Senthil For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinod Sathya Lazar

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.184 of 2015 in A.S.No.56 of 2014 dated 05.08.2016 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul, dismissing the application filed under Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The revision petitioners are the proposed appellants. The first respondent as plaintiff has filed a suit against one Perumal Maniyam in O.S.No.274 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul, claiming the relief of specific performance of the sale agreement dated 17.03.2012 and subsequently, the suit was transferred to the Subordinate Court, Vedasanthur and the case was taken on file in O.S.No. 268 of 2012. The said Perumal Maniyam has filed his written statement. The learned Subordinate Judge, after full-trial, has passed a judgment and decree dated 31.07.2013 granting the decree for specific performance as prayed for. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the said Perumal Maniyam has preferred an appeal in A.S.No.56 of 2014 and the same is pending on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul. Pending appeal, the said Perumal Maniyam died on 17.09.2014. The revision petitioners, by alleging that the deceased Perumal Maniyam had executed a Will dated 22.06.2012 bequeathing the suit properties to the revision petitioners and the second respondent and by claiming to be the legal representatives of the deceased Perumal Maniyam, have filed the above application in I.A.No.184 of 2015 under Order 22 Rule 9 C.P.C. seeking orders for impleading the revision petitioners as appellants 2 and 3 and the second respondent as second respondent in the above appeal. The first respondent has filed her counter statement raising objections. The second respondent has adopted the counter statement filed by the first respondent. The learned Principal District Judge, after enquiry, has passed the impugned order dated 05.08.2016 dismissing the impleadment application. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the proposed appellants have preferred the present revision.

3. The case of the revision petitioners, in the application filed under Order 22 Rule 9 C.P.C., is that the deceased Perumal Maniyam is their grandfather, that when he was alive, in a sound state of mind, he voluntarily executed a Will dated 22.06.2012 bequeathing 1.01 acres in the middle to the first revision petitioner in 'C' schedule and 1.01 acres to the second revision petitioner in 'B' schedule and the remaining 1.01 acres to the second respondent in 'D' schedule in Survey No.201/1 with a right in the well to each of them in Survey No.200/3, that after the death of the deceased Perumal Maniyam, the said Will came into force and the revision petitioners had taken separate possession of their respective shares of the suit property as per the terms of the said Will, that the first respondent has wrongly stated the survey number of the said well in the said suit, as the well actually lies in Survey No.200/3, but the first respondent has wrongly stated in the plaint as if it lies in Survey No.200/1, that since the landed property devolved on the revision petitioners and the second respondent, the revision petitioners and the second respondent being the legatees have to be impleaded as parties in the above appeal and that the revision petitioners will be put to irr