C.R.P.(PD) No.396 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 18.02.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

C.R.P.(PD) No.396 of 2022

and

C.M.P. No.2072 of 2022

N.Gowri

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.R.Nagarajan

2.R.Palanisamy

3.R.Nagaraj

4.R.Rajendran

5.S.Mangayarkarasi

... Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India against the order dated 01.10.2021 made in I.A. No.2

of 2020 in O.S. No.14 of 2017 on the file of the V Additional District Court,

Coimbatore.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.N.Ponraj

1/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(PD) No.396 of 2022

O R D E R

Challenging the dismissal of the application of her application to

implead the respondents 2 to 5 as defendants 2 to 5 in the Suit, the

defendant is before this Court.

2. The brief facts are as follows:

The first respondent/plaintiff had filed the Suit O.S. No.14 of 2017 on

the file of the District Judge, Coimbatore for a declaration that the plaintiff

is the sole and absolute owner of the suit property and for a direction to the

defendant to deliver to the plaintiff the vacant possession of the suit

property, removing the temporary structure put up thereon and for damages

for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the property measuring an extent

of one acre and 08 cents comprised in Survey No.295/2, 295/3 and 230/1

belonged to three brothers R.Palanisamy, R.Nagaraj and R.Rajendran, the

sons of Ramasamy Thevar. The brothers had partitioned this extent under

Partition Deed dated 01.07.1996, allotting specific extents to each of them

and the properties allotted to each of the sharers were described as

2/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(PD) No.396 of 2022

schedules A, B and C in the said document. In this partition, 0.36 acres in

Survey No.295/2, 295/2 and 230/1 which was allotted to the share of

R.Nagaraj is described as schedule-B to the partition deed. R.Nagaraj,

under a sale deed dated 02.09.1996 had sold the said property to the

plaintiff. It is the plaintiff's case that from on the date of the sale, he was put

in possession of the suit schedule property. Since the plaintiff was working

in Singapore the property was kept vacant and during his trips to

Coimbatore, he would visit the property and on one such occasion in the

month of December 2016, he was shocked to see the temporary shed in the

said property which on enquiry, he came to know was put up by the

defendant. The defendant when asked to remove the temporary structure

started asserting a right over the suit property, stating that he has purchased

the same under a sale deed dated 30.09.2013 from the power agent of the

three brothers, one S.Mangaiarkarasi. The sale in favour of the defendant is

non-est abinitio void, since the property has already been sold to the

plaintiff herein on 02.09.1996. The power agent had also been appointed

only after the sale in the favour of plaintiff, i.e., the power agent was

appointed on 27.09.1996. The plaintiff would further submit that a fraud

had been played by the said Mangaiarkarasi and the defendant herein.

3/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(PD) No.396 of 2022

4. A written statement was filed by the defendant contending that they

had purchased the property from the power agent of the three brothers, he

had also raised a plea that the power agent and the original owners were

necessary parties to the suit and therefore to be impleaded. Thereafter, she

had come forward to file I.A. No.2 of 2020 to implead the proposed parties

as defendants.

5. The 1^st respondent / plaintiff resisted the said application

contending that being the dominus litis, in the Suit, the plaintiff had already

chosen the party against whom the Suit has to be instituted and reliefs

claimed. Further, the imp