Partial abatement of a suit occurs upon the death of a plaintiff when the interests in the suit property are separate and distinct, allowing the remaining plaintiffs to continue the legal proceedings without causing irreconcilable conflicts or inconsistent decrees.

ORDER

1.Though the matter has been listed for hearing the vacate stay petition, by consent, the main revision petition is taken up for hearing.

2. The second defendant is the civil revision petitioner. The contesting respondents are the plaintiffs.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their ranks in the suit.

Essential averments as per the plaint

4. The suit schedule mentioned property was purchased by the first plaintiff, J.B.Malhotra. He did so by way of a registered sale deed dated 22.10.1984. He settled specific portions of the property in favour of the plaintiffs 2 and 3. The total extent of the property was around 5 grounds. He settled two grounds on the western side in favour of the second plaintiff and two grounds on the eastern side in favour of the third plaintiff. The first plaintiff retained one ground in his name. The settlement deeds were duly registered in Document Nos.6915 and6916 of 2013 dated 07.10.2013.

5. Post the registration of settlement deeds, when the plaintiffs applied for Encumbrance Certificate, it came to their knowledge that the first defendant had executed a sale deed in favour of the second defendant, for the suit schedule properties, on 26.08.2014. On verification, they came to know that the first defendant had created a document as if the first plaintiff had alienated the property in his favour in document No.1390 of 1986 dated 14.05.1986. The first plaintiff verified this document and he came to know that a fraud had been played by the first defendant. The plaint added, document No.1390 of 1986 was a document executed by one Selvi in favour of one Krishnan and that it was a mortgage deed for a different property.

6. The plaintiffs urged that the mortgage had nothing do with the suit schedule mentioned property and neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants were connected to the same. The plaintiffs urged that the first defendant, on the strength of this fabricated document, had alienated the property in favour of the second defendant and that both of them have attempted to trespass into the property. The plaintiffs lodged a complaint with the jurisdictional Police, who refused to take it on file. Hence, the plaintiffs approached this court in Crl. O.P.No.6971 of 2015. By an order dated 23.03.2015, this court directed the Police to enquire into the matter and register the compliant, if any cognizable offence is made out.

7. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the defendants are trying to alienate the property in favour of third parties. They feared that if such an event takes place, they will be put to irreparable loss and prejudice. Consequently, they filed O.S.No.350 of 2015, seeking the following reliefs:

“(a) for declaration, declaring that the alleged registered Sale Deed executed by the 1^st Defendant in favour of the 2^nd Defendant in Doc.No.5977 of 2014 dated 26.08.2014, registered on the file of 3^rd Defendant as null and void and consequently direct the 3^rd Defendant to make necessary corrections as to delete the entries of the registration of the Sale Deed in Doc.No.5977 of 2014 dated 26.08.2014.

(b) for permanent injunction restraining the 1^st and 2^nd Defendant their men, agents, servants or anybody claiming through them from in any manner interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiffs over the suit schedule property;

(c) for permanent injunction restraining the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants their men, agents, servants or anybody claiming through them from in any manner alienating the suit schedule property to any third parties.

(d) for direction, directing the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants to pay the cost of the suit and pass such or other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.”

8. Initially, the suit was presented before the District Munsif Court at Alandur, which then had the jurisdiction over the property. Pending the suit, the plaintiffs took out an application seeking th