BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved On : 06.08.2021 Delivered On :25.08.2021 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI C.R.P.(MD)No.1955 of 2017 and C.M.P.(MD)No.9946 of 2017

1.Gomathiammal

2.Packiya Selvi

3.J.Chellathai ... Petitioners / Petitioners / Plaintiffs Vs.

1.Prabavathy

2.T.Epsiba Aasir

3.T.John Samykan

4.V.Thangaraj

5.M.Revathy 6.Athiappan

7.Pitchaiah

8.Chelladurai ... Respondents 1to 8 / Respondents 1 to 8 /

Defendants

9.Dr.G.G.Selvan

10.Dr.Rosida Vani Rai ... Respondents 9 & 10 / Proposed Respondents 9 & 10 / 3^rd Parties (R1 to R3 dispensed with the notice, ordered on 06.08.2021 Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order passed in I.A.No.405 of 2016 in O.S.No.264 of 2010, dated 02.06.2017, on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli.

For Petitioners : Mr.H.Arumugam For R4 to R8 : Mr.V.Balaji For R9 and R10 : Mr.R.Arivu Kumar R1 to R3 : Dispensed with vide order dated 06.08.2021 ***

ORDER

This revision petition is filed against the order, dated 02.06.2017, passed in I.A.No.405 of 2016, in O.S.No.264 of 2010, on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli.

2.The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs, the respondents 1 to 8 herein are the defendants 1 to 8 and the respondents 9and 10 herein are third parties, who are the proposed defendants 9 to 10. The petitioners filed a suit against the respondents 1 to 8 for a prayer of partition and for separate possession. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed a petition in I.A.No.405 of 2016 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C., to implead the third parties respondents 9 and 10 / as proposed defendants

9 and 10.

3.Brief substance of the petition in I.A.No.405 of 2016 is as follows: -

3.1.The petitioners are the plaintiffs. They filed a suit for partition. In the written statement of the defendants 4 to 8, it was stated that one Packiyam, Ranjitham, and Srinivasa Iyangar were necessary parties to the suit. Out of them, Backiyam died before the filing of the suit and her husband viz., Samykannu also died and they had two sons and a daughter, by name, Asirvatham, Abraham, and Ranjitham. The defendants 1 to 3 are the sons of Asirvatham. Abraham died in the year 2006. Even when Samikannu and Packiyam were alive, Abraham separated his share from the family and left. Srinivasa Iyangar and Ranjitham also were dead.

So, they are not necessary parties to the suit proceedings.

3.2.The petitioners field a petition in I.A.No.602 of 2014 regarding the second item of the first schedule property, SI.Nos.4 and 5. That property belonged to the first plaintiff, the husband of the first defendant and the said Abraham and they sold the property to Dr. Selvan on 07.01.1993. The second item of the property was sold to Dr.Rosida Vani Rai, on 15.05.1996. The said Dr. Selvam and Dr.Rosida Vani Rai are to be impleaded in the suit as defendants 9 and 10.

4.Brief substance of the counter filed by the respondents 4 to 8 in I.A.No.405 of 2016 is as follows:-

The petitioners have to prove that the properties belonged to Samikannu and Backiyam. The petitioners have to prove that Samikannu and Backiyam had two sons, by name, Asirvatham and Abraham and a daughter, by name, Ranjitham. The petitioners have to prove that Abraham died in the year 2006 and that he left and divided his share in the property, even when his parents were alive. The petitioners have to prove the death of Srinivasa Iyangar and Ranjitham. The first schedule property second item and the second schedule property, second item was sold by the first plaintiff and the husband of the first defendant and one Abraham, to Dr.Selvan, on 07.01.1993. The first schedule first item and second item of properties were sold to Dr.Rosida Vani Rai, on 15.05.1996. The petitioners are not having any right to ask for partition. There is a delay of 23 years and 20 days, for seeking a prayer of cancellation of sale deeds. The relief sought for was barred by limitation. Only