IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

CMP.No.1997 of 2024

1. Mohan

2. Rajendran

3. Samundeeswari

4. Ravichandran

5. Thiruneelagandan

6. Bhuvaneswari

7. Lakshmi

8. Rajeswari 9. Saravanan

10. Manikandan ... Petitioners

Vs.

1. The Mahindra World City Development Ltd

Administrative Block,

Central Avenue, Natham Sub (PO)

Chengalpattu Taluk

2. The Veerapuram Panchayat

Represented by EO Chengalpattu Taluk

3. SPI Cinemas (P) Ltd by its Director

No.25, 5^th Floor, Mamatha Complex,

Whites Road, Royapettah,Chennai – 600 014. ...Respondents

PRAYER :Civil Revision Petition filed Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to allow the Revision Petition and set aside the Order dated 15.02.2023 in I.A.No.115 of 2020 in O.S.No.97 of 2014 on the file of learned District Munsif Chengalpet and allow IA No.115 of 2020 permitting the petitioners/plaintiffs to implead the Respondents 2 and 3 as Defendants to the suit O.S.No.97 of 2014 on the file of District Munsif Chengalpet.

For Petitioner : M/s.V.Ravi For R1 : Mr.Srinath Sridevan, Senior Counsel for M/s.Aishwarya S.Nathan For R2 : Mr.J.Daniel Government Advocate (CS)

For R3 : M/s.Abishek Jenasenan

ORDER

The civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs seeking impleadment of respondents 2 and 3.

2. Originally, the petitioners filed a suit for declaration of title and consequential relief of injunction with alternative prayer for recovery of possession against the 1^st respondent.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that suit property was originally purchased by their mother Smt.Chandrammal under registered sale deeds dated

01.03.1958 and 22.06.1958 and they enjoyed the same as ancestral property. The abovesaid Chandrammal died on 01.12.2012 leaving behind the petitioners as legal heirs to succeed to her estate. The petitioners after obtaining knowledge about revenue records with the name of the 1^st respondent laid the above mentioned suit.

4. The 1^st respondent filed written statement and resisted the suit by asserting title based on two registered documents dated 07.10.1997and 24.09.1997. It was also stated by the 1^st respondent that after purchase, mutation had taken place in it’s name and construction were also put up in that suit property. Thus, 1^st defendant claimed title as well as possession over the suit property.

5. During the course of trial, after closure of plaintiff side evidence, the application has been filed by the petitioners seeking impleadment of respondents 2 and 3 on the ground that 1^st respondent produced certain documents relating to suit property to prove a portion of the suit property was gifted to 2^nd respondent panchayat and another portion was leased out in favour of 3^rd respondent. In view of the same, the petitioners filed impleading application to implead the respondents 2 and 3 as party defendants and the same was dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come before this Court .

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the respondents 2 and 3 said to have acquired some interest over a portion of the suit property with some kind of arrangement with the 1^st respondent, it has become necessary for the petitioners to seek their impleadment. The learned counsel submitted that in order to have effective adjudication of case, the presence of respondents 2 and 3, who said to have acquired some kind of right over the suit property from the 1^st respondent, is also necessary.

7. The learned Senior Counsel for the 1^st respondent submitted that gift deed in favour of 2^nd respondent panchayat was executed on 09.12.2011 and the suit was filed by the petitioners only in the year of 2014 and therefore, the petitioners could have impleaded 2^nd respondent panchayat even at the time of filing of the suit. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi and Others