CRP (MD) No.1372 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on

18.07.2023

Pronounced on

10.11.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI

CRP (MD) No.1372 of 2021

P.Jaya

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Arockiya John Kennedy

2.Robert Claimant

Arockiyasamy Udaiyar (died)

Yohoob(died)

3.Sagayamery

... Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 19.12.2019 in I.A.No.8

of 2019 in A.S.No.24 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional

Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur.

1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP (MD) No.1372 of 2021

For Petitioner

: Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian

For R1

: Mr.G.Kannan

For R2

: Mr.R.Udayakumar

For R3

: No appearance

O R D E R

This revision is preferred against the order dated 19.12.2019 passed in

I.A.No.08 of 2019 in A.S.No.24 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional

Sub Judge, Thanjavur.

2. According to the revision petitioner, the plaintiffs filed the suit in

O.S.No.55 of 2012 for declaration, for payment of compensation and also for

permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed as against the third

defendant and the third defendant was also directed to pay a sum of

Rs.45,790/- as compensation with 6% interest per annum from the date of

plaint till the date of realization, against which, the third defendant preferred

2/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP (MD) No.1372 of 2021

an appeal in A.S No.24 of 2017. During pendency of the appeal, the third

defendant filed the petition in I.A. No.8 of 2019 under Order 22 Rule

4 of CPC and Section 151 of CPC to implead the proposed parties as

respondents in the appeal suit. In the above petition, the petitioner/third

defendant has stated that the first defendant, namely Arockiysamy Udaiyar,

left the suit village in the year 1997 and his whereabouts was not known for

several years. Therefore, it is construed that the first defendant has attained

civil death. Therefore, it is necessary to implead his legal heirs in the appeal

suit. Apart from that, the second defendant died and therefore, it is necessary

to implead the legal heirs of the first defendant. The said application was

resisted on the side of the plaintiffs stating that the legal heirs of the first

defendant do not have any right or title in the suit property for the reason that

the first and second defendants settled the suit properties in the year 1985 in

favour of the plaintiffs by way of a registered settlement deed. The petitioner

herein had fraudulently obtained a sale deed from the first and second

defendants and therefore, the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs were constrained

to file the above suit against the third defendant. It is submitted that the

petitioner/third defendant has not obtained any declaration regarding the

3/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP (MD) No.1372 of 2021

death of the first defendant and therefore, it cannot be presumed that first

defendant has attained civil death. The respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs further

stated that the first and second defendants were arrayed only as formal parties

and no relief is claimed against them. Therefore, it is not necessary to

implead the legal heirs of the first defendant in the appeal suit. The first

appellate Court after considering the averments made in the petition and in

the counter affidavit and the arguments advanced by both parties, dismissed

the above application. Against which, the present civil revision petition is

preferred.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that

the respondents 1 and 2 are in collusion with each other and with common

intention to grab the suit property from the revision petitioner, wantonly

failed to implead the legal heirs of the first defendant in the suit. To avoid

multiplicitie