AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Palanivelu, J.—The petitioners filed I.A. No. 95 of 2007 in O.S. No. 16 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli. It
is the suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs/1 to 5 respondents. Both the parties namely, the plaintiffs and defendants appeared before the Court
and expressed their consensus for passing the preliminary decree and accordingly a preliminary decree was passed by the Trial Court. Thereafter,
the respondents filed Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 71 of 2007 for passing of final decree. At this juncture, these petitioners filed the
present petition for impleading them as parties.
The original owner of the property is one Mohammed Nagoor Meeran Sahib who purchased the properties by means of registered sale deed
dated 04.06.1908. Afterwards his legal heirs were in possession of the properties. It is the claim of the petitioners that they are purchasers by
means of three different sale deeds from the vendors who in turn purchased them from the legal heirs of the above said original owner. They have
also to be impleaded as parties to the final decree proceedings, which is their claim.
The above said petition was resisted by the respondents/plaintiffs before the Court below by stating that they do not have any right over the suit
properties and they are attempting the confuse the issue. The learned Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli dismissed the application for impleadment
by observing that in the absence of valid proof to show the particulars of the sale deeds with reference to 5 acre two cents in S. No. 483/3, the
petitioners cannot plead that they are the owners of the properties.
The petitioners are claiming plot numbers 17, 19 and 18 respectively, which are in S. Nos. 483/3 and 483/5. The learned Counsel for the
petitioners Mr. P. Senthur Pandian would submit that the petitioners have not purchased the properties from the vendors, but had purchased from
the legal heirs of the original purchasers. They have kept valid title to the properties and that the observation otherwise of this matter rendered by
the learned Principal District Judge is not correct.
He has placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in T.V. Sakthivel Vs. The Regional Joint Registrar Cooperative
Societies, The Sub Registrar, Cooperative Societies and The Special Officer, in which their Lordships have held thus:
In an application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the Court would only decide whether the presence of the applicant would be
necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the proceedings. But
the question of strict proof whether the applicants were also entitled to the rights involved in the proceedings, may not be germane for decision.
If the Court finds that any of the party is having the right over the suit property and in order to effectively and completely adjudicate the matter in
issue with regard to the rights available to both the parties to the suit they must be impleaded in the suit. Adverting to the facts of the present case,
the production of three documents dated 17.04.2006 and 04.05.2006 by these petitioners would show that they have purchased distinct plots in
the suit survey numbers. Thus title is traced on the strength of the particulars available in these deeds, are referable to the document dated
08.06.1984 bearing registration number 1637/1984 and 23.12.1994 with the registration number 74/1995.
One Fatima Stephen alias Fatima Mary Thai sold the properties to these petitioners by means of three documents. The said Fatima Mary Thai
purchased the properties on 08.06.1984 from one D. Selvaraj. The said D. Selvaraj had earlier purchased the property from W. Mohaideen
Masthan and Peer Mohammed on 03.05.1984. The learned Counsel for the petitioners says that the vendors in 1984 document are legal heirs or
successors in title of the original owner/purchaser of 1908 document. The above said particulars would candidly show that these petitioners are
able to trace the title in the suit properties and hence it is held that their presence is very much essential for further proceedings of the case and then
only the rights of the parties could be finally adjudicated without further troubles in future.
In such view of this matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli is not
sustainable and it is accordingly set aside. The petition in I.A. No. 95 of 2007 is allowed.
In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli will not get influenced by any of the observations
made by this Court in the order. He is directed to dispose of the final decree application preferably before summer vacation 2009. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.