BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on 18.07.2023 Pronounced on 10.11.2023 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI CRP (MD) No.1372 of 2021 P.Jaya ... Petitioner Vs.

1.Arockiya John Kennedy

2.Robert Claimant Arockiyasamy Udaiyar (died)

Yohoob(died)

3.Sagayamery ... Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 19.12.2019 in I.A.No.8 of 2019 in A.S.No.24 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian For R1 : Mr.G.Kannan For R2 : Mr.R.Udayakumar For R3 : No appearance

O R D E R

This revision is preferred against the order dated 19.12.2019 passed in I.A.No.08 of 2019 in A.S.No.24 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional Sub Judge, Thanjavur.

2. According to the revision petitioner, the plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.55 of 2012 for declaration, for payment of compensation and also for permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed as against the third defendant and the third defendant was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.45,790/- as compensation with 6% interest per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realization, against which, the third defendant preferred an appeal in A.S No.24 of 2017. During pendency of the appeal, the third defendant filed the petition in I.A. No.8 of 2019 under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC and Section 151 of CPC to implead the proposed parties as respondents in the appeal suit. In the above petition, the petitioner/third defendant has stated that the first defendant, namely Arockiysamy Udaiyar, left the suit village in the year 1997 and his whereabouts was not known for several years. Therefore, it is construed that the first defendant has attained civil death. Therefore, it is necessary to implead his legal heirs in the appeal suit. Apart from that, the second defendant died and therefore, it is necessary to implead the legal heirs of the first defendant. The said application was resisted on the side of the plaintiffs stating that the legal heirs of the first defendant do not have any right or title in the suit property for the reason that the first and second defendants settled the suit properties in the year 1985 in favour of the plaintiffs by way of a registered settlement deed. The petitioner herein had fraudulently obtained a sale deed from the first and second defendants and therefore, the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs were constrained to file the above suit against the third defendant. It is submitted that the petitioner/third defendant has not obtained any declaration regarding the death of the first defendant and therefore, it cannot be presumed that first defendant has attained civil death. The respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs further stated that the first and second defendants were arrayed only as formal parties and no relief is claimed against them. Therefore, it is not necessary to implead the legal heirs of the first defendant in the appeal suit. The first appellate Court after considering the averments made in the petition and in the counter affidavit and the arguments advanced by both parties, dismissed the above application. Against which, the present civil revision petition is preferred.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the respondents 1 and 2 are in collusion with each other and with common intention to grab the suit property from the revision petitioner, wantonly failed to implead the legal heirs of the first defendant in the suit. To avoid multiplicities of proceedings, the first appellate Court ought to have implead the legal heirs of the first defendant. Hence, the order passed by the first appellate court is liable to be dismissed.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the legal heirs of the first defendant do not have any right or title in the suit property. The first and second