C.R.P(MD)No.958 of 2020

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 07.12.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

C.R.P(MD)No.958 of 2020

and

C.M.P(MD) No.6232 of 2020

C.Cheraiselvan

... Petitioner/Petitioner/Respondent

Vs.

1.V.M.D.Kathiravan

... 1st Respondent/Respondent/Respondent

2.C.Veeraganesan

... 2nd Respondent/Respondent/Proposed Party

PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of

Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order

dated 14.08.2020 passed in I.A.No.824 of 2019 in A.S.No.38 of 2019

on the file of IV Additional District Court, Madurai.

For Petitioner

: Mr.D.Baskar

ORDER

The revision petitioner is the appellant in A.S.No.38 of

2019 and the plaintiff before the trial Court in O.S.No.189 of

2014. The suit in O.S.No.189 of 2014 was filed by the petitioner

herein for recovery of a sum of Rs.8,44,900/- with subsequent

interest at 6% per annum on Rs.7,00,000/- from the date of plaint

till the date of realization against the first respondent herein.

2.The cause of action for institution of the above suit was

certain financial transactions between the petitioner and the first

respondent and the proposed respondent Veeraganesan in respect of

the auction purchase of the property, which was brought to sale by

the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society, Madurai. In fact, the

three of them had entered into partnership agreement on 16.07.2010.

The petitioner would submit that the balance consideration was paid

by the three of them and the sale certificate was registered on

16.09.2010. However, the original sale certificate and other

receipts were not handed over to the plaintiff. The plaintiff

demanded the partition of the property in view of the attitude of

the respondents herein. It appears that the first respondent had

sold 2 acre 86 cents from the property to one Sahaselvaraj without

informing the plaintiff and on applying for encumbrance

certificate, he came to learn that he had been cheated by the

respondents herein. This has led to the filing of the suit.

1/3

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

C.R.P(MD)No.958 of 2020

3.The suit was only instituted against the first respondent

herein. In the written statement that has been filed by the first

respondent, apart from raising the defences on merits, the first

respondent had also stated that besides Veeraganesan, another

person Sathasivam was also a party to this transaction and

therefore, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties,

namely, Sathasivam and Veeraganesan.

4.In the reply statement, the plaintiff had taken a stand that

the Veeraganesan and Sathasivam were neither necessary nor proper

parties to the suit. The catagoric pleadings to this effect has

been taken in paragraph No.6. Thereafter, the suit in O.S.No.189 of

2014 was taken up for trial by the learned Third Additional

Subordinate Judge, Madurai. The additional issue framed in the

suit was whether the suit was maintainable on account of non-

joinder of necessary party. Ultimately, by judgment and decree,

dated 14.08.2018, the suit was dismissed and the learned Third

Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, had returned the finding in

the additional issue that the suit was definitely bad for non-

joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiff thereafter filed the

appeal in A.S.No.38 of 2019. In the said appeal, he has taken out

an application in I.A.No.824 of 2019 to implead the second

respondent herein as the second defendant in the suit in O.S.No.189

of 2014. The reason for taking out this application has been set

out in paragraph No.5 of the affidavit filed in support of the

petition, wherein the petitioner had stated as follows:-

5. I further submit that since the lower Court

came to the conclusion that the second respondent is a

necessary party to