Advocates:
['M/S P RAJESH', '', 'SELVIRAJESH', 'S KRISHNAPRIYA', 'm/s a muthukumar', '', 's vijay anand', 'R - TAPAL RETURNED WITH AN ENDORSEMENT LEFT', 'R- NEELAVATHI', 'PRIVATE NOTICE ORDERED ON', '', 'AOS NOT FILED']

CRP.NPD.No.1152/2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 02.02.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

CRP.NPD.No.1152/2019 and CMP.No.7420/2019

[Virtual Mode]

Bagyalakshmi

.. Petitioner

Vs.

N.Saraswathiammal (died)

1.N.Selvakumari

2.Neelavathi

3.Ramadoss

.. Respondents

Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC to set aside

the fair and decreetal order dated 03.12.2018 passed in REA.No.159/2018

against EP.No.24/2018 in O.S.No.125/2010 on the file of the learned

Principal Sub-ordinate Court at Krishnagiri.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.Selvirajesh

For R1

:

No appearance

For R2

:

No appearance

For R3

:

Mr.A.Muthukumar

1

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

CRP.NPD.No.1152/2019

ORDER

(1)

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in

REA.No.159/2018 against the REP.No.24/2018 in O.S.No.125/2010

passed by the Principal Sub Court, Krishnagiri.

(2)

Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision

Petition are as follows:

(3)

The petitioner, admittedly is a third party to the proceedings in

O.S.No.125/2010. The said Suit in O.S.No.125/2010 before the

Principal Sub Court, Krishnagiri was filed by the 4th respondent in

the Civil Revision Petition for partition of 1/4th share in the Suit

property.

(4)

It is not in dispute that the Preliminary Decree was granted. It is also

not in dispute that after the Preliminary Decree one of the sharers

died and therefore, the plaintiff/4th respondent applied for

modification of shares and the Preliminary Decree which was passed

in the Suit was modified by granting 1/3rd share to the 4th

respondent/plaintiff.

2

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

CRP.NPD.No.1152/2019

(5)

It is admitted that the Suit in O.S.No.125/2010 is also for permanent

injunction restraining the defendants in the Suit from dealing with

the property which is the subject matter of the Suit. Despite the fact,

that the Preliminary Decree and a decree for permanent injunction

was granted on 12.01.2011 and the subsequent decree modifying the

share from 1/4th to 1/3rd was given by another decree dated

06.08.2013, the revision petitioner has purchased the Suit property

from the 2nd defendant in the Suit by a Sale Deed dated 29.10.2012.

(6)

The Sale Deed itself is in utter disregard to the decree for injunction

granted against the 2nd defendant, the vendor of the revision

petitioner. It is also stated by the plaintiff that the sale is a fraudulent

one. It is admitted that the sale in favour of the revision petitioner is

during the pendency of proceedings. The sale is not only fraudulent

but also in utter disregard and disobedience to the decree granted by

the Court in the Suit in O.S.No.125/2010.

(7)

The revision petitioner earlier filed a petition to implead herself as

3

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

CRP.NPD.No.1152/2019

party to the Execution Petition. It is admitted that the said

application was dismissed on the ground that the remedy for the

revision petitioner is to proceed against the 2nd defendant and not to

claim any right over the property on the basis of the Sale Deed

which was executed, during the pendency of proceedings and

against an order granting injunction restraining the defendants from

alienating the property. Though the petitioner states that she is

innocent and bonafide purchaser, the fact that the sale in her favour

is hit by lis pendens and that the same was in violation of decree for

injunction granted by the Competent Court are admitted.

(8)

The application filed by the revision petitioner in I.A.No.605/2015

to implead himself as a party to the Suit in O.S.No.125/2010 was

dismissed. The petitioner challenged the order before this Court in

CRP.No.4473/2017. This Court after recording the admitted facts

that the Sale Deed obtained by the revision petitioner is hit by lis

pendens and the application is filed by the revision petiti