CRP(MD)No.1123 of 2020

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 03.08.2021

(Reserved on 30.03.2021)

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

CRP(MD)No.1123 of 2020

and

CMP(MD)No.7234 of 2020

K.N.Allahbux

Represented by Power of Attorney

A.Mohamed Safiudeen

... Petitioner / 1^st defendant

vs.

1)K.N.Dawood Mohideen

2)K.N.Abdul Hai

... Respondents 1 &2/

Plaintiffs

3)K.N.Abdul Ali

4)Habib Gani

5)Asia Mariam

6)Sarammal

7)K.Alagar

8)Alimuthu Nisha (died)

... Respondents 3 to 8/

Defendants 2 to 7

9)D.Navaneetha Krishnan

... 9^th respondent /

Proposed party

10)M.Asraj Ali

11)Jannath Kamila

12)M.Mohammed Siddique

... Respondents 10 to 12/

LRs of deceased 8^th respondent

Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,

against the fair and decreetal order dated 05.03.2020 in

I.A.No.98/2017 in O.S.No.62/2011 on the file of the Additional

District Judge, Dindigul.

For Petitioner

: Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar

For R1 & R2

: Mr.T.Balaji

For R3

: Mr.Na.Palaniyandi

For R6

: Mr.S.Natarajan

For R9

: Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram for

Mr.A.Hariharan

For R7, R10 & R11 : No appearance

1/5

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

CRP(MD)No.1123 of 2020

ORDER

This petition has been filed by the revision petitioner / first

defendant against the order, dated 05.03.2020, passed by the Court

below in I.A.No.98/2017 in O.S.No.62/2011 dismissing the petition

filed for impleading the tenant in the suit.

2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein as plaintiffs have filed the

suit in O.S.No.62 of 2011 for partition against their brothers and

sisters viz., revision petitioner/1^st defendant and the respondents

3 to 8/defendants 2 to 7. During the pendency of the suit, the

revision petitioner/1^st defendant filed an application in I.A.No.98

of 2017 seeking to implead the 9^th respondent herein, who is a

tenant under the respondents 1 and 2/ plaintiffs in 'B' schedule

property. The Court below dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved

by the same, the petitioner has come up with this revision petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision

petitioner/first defendant submitted that the plaintiffs claimed

partition of suit schedule properties and they filed an injunction

application along with the suit in respect of 'B' and 'C' schedule

properties in I.A.No.71/2011. Subsequently, the revision petitioner

filed a petition to reject the plaint which was dismissed, against

which, he filed CRP(MD)No.2575/2015 before this Court, wherein,

interim stay was granted. Taking advantage of the same, the

respondents 1 & 2 / plaintiffs started putting up construction in

'B' schedule property from May 2016 and therefore, the petitioner

filed an injunction application not to put up construction, but the

construction was completed by the plaintiffs. The learned counsel

for the petitioner would further submit that the respondents 1 & 2 /

plaintiffs rented out illegally constructed building to the 9^th

respondent/proposed party during July, 2016 on receipt of Rs.7 lakhs

as advance and for a monthly rent of Rs.7,000/-. The proposed

party, who was inducted as tenant in the illegally constructed

building, has every possibility to claim right to be in possession

in the joint family property which is the subject matter of

partition suit and when such substantial right is sought to be

created in favour of the third party/proposed party, the right of

other sharers in the joint family property will be put into

prejudice. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present impleading

petition to implead the proposed party as 8^th defendant in the suit.

The Court below holding that no relief is claimed in the suit

against the proposed party and he is in no way connected with the

suit property, dismissed the impleading petition by the impugned

order dated 05.03.2020, against which, this revision petition is

filed.

4