Parties cannot be added as defendants if the properties in question are not included as subject matter in the suit.

10. G.Muthu Kumaran … Respondents Common Prayer in all CRPs: Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order dated 19/10/2023 passed in I.A.No. 3/2022 in O.S. No. 22 of 2014 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai District.

For Petitioner(s): Ms. M.Vidya For Respondent(s): Mr.B.Venugobal for R1, R2 Mr.B.Ravi for R3 and R8 Mr.I.Muthuswamy for R4 Mr. N.Manoharan for R9 to R12 In CRP No.1297 of 2024 For Petitioners : Mr.R.Subramanian For Respondents : Mr.B.Venugobal for R1 and R2 Mr.I.Muthuswamy for R4 Mr.N.Manoharan for R10 to R13 In CRP No.327 of 2024 For Petitioners : Mr.N.Manoharan For Respondents : Mr.B.Venugobal for R1 and R2 Mr.R.Subramanian for R3 and R8 Mr.I.Muthuswamy for R4 Ms.M.Vidya for R9 and R10

COMMON ORDER

These civil revision petitions have been filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court, allowing the application filed by the respondents 1 and 2/

plaintiffs seeking inclusion of the petitioners as party /defendants in the suit.

2. The respondents 1 and 2 and deceased Lakshmi/ plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and other reliefs against other respondents/defendants 1 to 6. Pending suit, instant application in I.A.No.3 of 2022 has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs seeking to implead the petitioners in these revision petitions as proposed parties in the suit on the ground that the petitioner in CRP No.1297 of 2024, namely Sivasakthi purchased certain properties from the power of attorney of the plaintiffs, namely Ravichandran/ 2^nd defendant and thereafter, the said Sivasakthi sold those properties to the petitioners in CRP Nos.1988 and 327 of 2024. The said application has been allowed by the Trial Court by holding that inview of the plea of partial partition raised by the 2^nd defendant, all these applications have been allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners in these civil revision petitions have come before this court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the properties dealt with by the petitioners were not subject matter of the present suit and therefore, impleadment of the petitioners in the suit as party/ defendant is not at all necessary. The learned counsel also drawn the attention of this court to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of impleading petition, wherein, the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs submitted that the properties dealt with by the petitioners herein were not included in the plaint schedule and they have been taking steps to include the same in the plaint schedule.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would submit that the properties dealt with by the plaintiffs are joint family properties and the same have been sold by the 2^nd defendant in favour of the revision petitioner in CRP No.1297 of 2024, who in turn sold the same to the petitioners in CRP No.1988 and 327 of 2024.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of the impleading petition, the respondents 1 and 2 /plaintiffs have given details of the properties dealt with by the revision petitioners. As per the averments made in the said affidavit, the 2^nd defendant sold the properties in S.No.50/2L2 – Acre 0.37 cents; S.No.50/2G – Acre 0.84 cents; S.No.50/2G – Acre 0.10 cents; S.No.50/2 – 1/3 share in the well and S.No.66/2c2 – Acre 0.32 cents to one J.Sivasakthi (petitioner in CRP No.1297 of 2024), vide sale deed dated 21.02.2014. It is further stated that the said Sivasakthi, by sale deed dated 19.12.2018, sold 32 cents out of 37 cents of properties in S.No