Unprobated Will insufficient for impleadment in eviction; title claims pursued separately.

COMMON ORDER

Challenging the impugned orders passed in M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2022 in RLTOP.No.346 of 2021 by the learned XV Judge, XV Court of Small Causes, Chennai respectively, the Revision Petitioner/1^st respondent landlord had preferred these Civil Revision Petitions.

2. Before the trial court, the respondents 1 and 2/proposed respondents 3 and 4 have filed the petitions to permit them to represent and to defend the case through their power agent and to implead them as party respondents 3 and 4 in the petition in RLTOP No.346 of 2021. All the petitions were contested by the revision petitioner landlord in that petition. On hearing both sides, the trial judge had allowed all the petitions. Aggrieved over that, the revision petitioner/landlord had preferred these Civil Revision Petitions.

3.The learned counsel for Revision Petitioner would submit that the husband of Meenakshi, one Kumarasamy, who is the absolute owner of the property and the said Kumarasamy and Meenakshi had no issues. He would submit that after the death of the said Kumarasamy, she became absolute owner of the property, from her, revision petitioner’s vendor one Sujatha had purchased the property and as on date, she claimed that she is the absolute owner of the property based on the sale deed of the year 2020. Thereafter, she filed eviction proceedings against the respondents 3 and 4 herein in RLTOP No.346 of 2021. Pending proceedings, the respondents 1 and 2 had filed a suit claiming themselves as beneficiaries under the Will said to have been executed by Kumarasamy, husband of erstwhile vendor Meenaskhi. He would submit that they have also filed a suit in O.S.No. 163 of 2022 praying to declare the sale deed stands in the name of Revision Petitioner’s vendor as null and void. Pending that suit, they have came forward with the said application to implead them and the same was allowed by the trial judge. The learned counsel would also argue that without proving the unregistered Will dated 09.07.1996 relied on by them, the proposed respondents so far have not probated the Will nor they have failed to continue the proceedings, without which, they are not entitled to proceed with the proceedings as absolute owners of property. But the trial judge failed to appreciate the same and erroneously granted permission. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the findings of trial judge.

4.The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 would submit that during the life time of Kumarasamy, he executed a Will in favour of them, who are brother’s son of the said Kumarasamy. Therefore, they are necessary parties to be impleaded in the RLTOP petition.

5.Heard and considered rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6.Admittedly, as on date, the probate proceedings initiated by the respondents was dismissed for default and now they have to take steps to restore the same. But, as on date, the Will has not been probated. Besides, they have filed the suit claiming the relief of declaration in O.S.No. 163 of 2022 after the RLTOP proceedings. Till date, their title is not declared by any of the civil court. However, as on date, the sale deed stands in the name of the Revision Petitioner, who initiated RLTOP proceedings in the year 2021 after her purchase and she had also collected rent from the respondents 3 and 4, who are tenants under the previous owner. Thus, tenancy is not under dispute. After the purchase, she is entitled to initiate eviction proceedings and the same is pending before the Rent Controller. At this stage, the proposed respondents 1 and 2 have filed the petitions to implead them as beneficiaries under the unregistered Will said to have been executed by Kumarasamy. As on date, the Will has n