D. Krishnamoorthi vs Elanjiam alias Chandra and Others

N. Arumugham, J.—The challenge involved in this revision pertains to the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Chidambaram in

I.A.No. 1653 of 1995 in O.S.No. 1227 of 1988 dated 29.11.1995 filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC is to implead the fourth respondent

herein. On ordering notice of motion, the parties made their appearance through the Bar. With the consent, I have heard both sides in the main

revision itself and disposed of the same by delivering this order.

It is stated that the suit properties belonged to the respondents 1 to 3 herein which were hypothecated by them by means of an usufructuary

mortgage in favour of the revision petitioner herein and accordingly, he was put in possession of the same. Further, it appears that subsequently, the

respondents 1 to 3 herein filed a suit for redemption in O.S.No. 1227 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif, Chidambaram, which is being

resisted by the defendant. Pending disposal of the suit, it is stated that on 26.12.1991, the fourth respondent herein seems to have purchased the all

rights of the properties subjected to the mortgage, by means of a registered document and thus, he became the absolute owner of the properties.

This transfer, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, was subject to the discharge of the mortgage amount due to the mortgagee.

Since the fourth respondent has purchased the mortgaged properties, and he was also in possession of the same as a tenant, he assumed every

power and thus, stepped into the shoes of the mortgagers and in view of the same, he has also become entitled to redeem the mortgage. For the

said reasonings, he has filed the petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC to implead him as one of the plaintiffs in the suit, as he has got every

subsisting and valuable right in the suit properties. Though this petitioner was resisted by the mortgage by inter-alia contending that he (the fourth

respondent herein) has no locus standi to come into the picture and he has no right to get himself impleaded in the present litigation as the

mortgagee has already got the execution of the usufructuary mortgage upon the suit properties. Having heard the rival contentions and perused the

supporting documents, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that for all the reasonings given in the impugned order, the petition is allowed and

accordingly, the fourth respondent is ordered to be impleaded as fourth plaintiff is the suit. Aggrieved at this, the present revision is canvassed by

the defendant.

I have heard Mrs. Prabha Sridevan, learned counsel for and on behalf of the revision petitioner who would contend that the fourth respondent

purchaser is totally a stranger to the suit properties, that he has filed the petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC only with a view to prove the

existing right of the mortgagers, but, however, without offering adequate proof for his so-called purchase of the entire properties and it is too early

to get himself impleaded as one of the plaintiffs in the suit and that therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned District Munsif is thus

assailed for want of legal sanctity and property. On the other hand, I have heard Mr. Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the fourth

respondent who drew my attention to the copy of the registered sale deed executed between the respondents 1 to 4 which shows that during the

pendency of the suit, the fourth respondent seems to have purchased the whole interest, right and title of the suit properties from the Mortgagers.

The original document has not been filed and the xerox copy of the same is relied on for the limited purpose. Prima facie it is seen that the suit

properties have been purchased by the fourth respondent herein who is admittedly a third party and under such circumstances, the purchaser of the

suit properties is entitled to be added as one of the plaintiffs in the suit for redemption and without his presence, no proper decision or adjudication

of the matter by a Court of law can be done in the instant case and by so saying, learned counsel justified the impugned order passed by the trial

Court.

It is the common case of both the parties herein that the respondents 1 to 3 are the mortgagors who created the suit mortgage in favour of the

defendant who is the revision petitioner herein and the respondents 1 to 3 filed the suit for redemption against the petitioner herein and during the

pendency of the suit, the fourth respondent herein seems to have purchased all the rights, interest and title of the suit properties from the

mortgagors by virtue of a registered document dated 26.12.1991, as evidenced from the copy of the sale deed shown to me for the limited

purpose. Of course, in this context, the purchaser is bound to produce the original and prove his title and the valid purchase during the trial It is

also worthwhile to note that by virtue of this document, the proposed party purchaser stepped into the shoes of the original owners viz. the

mortgagors who are the plaintiffs 1 to 3 in the suit. It is also noticed that the purchaser-fourth respondent claims that he has purchased the

properties under a sale deed, subject to the discharge of the liability of the mortgage created by the mortgagors. If that is being so, it is all well to

note that the fourth respondent herein has acquired every right, and interest over the suit properties by stepping into the shoes of the original

mortgagors, the decision of the Court upon which is still pending disposal.

Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC runs as follows :-

The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the

Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant be struck out, and that the name of any

person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable

the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the suit, be added

Adverting to the above Sub-rule 2, it is clearly indicative of the enormous power vested with the trial court either to add any person whose

presence is felt necessary or deemed to be essential or to strike out when the presence of such person in a proceeding has become unnecessary

with the avowed object of adjudication or settling the dispute among the parties effectually and completely, either upon the application by a party

or even by the Court of law suo motu. What is more made so imperative in the sub-rule is that to adjudicate or settle the dispute among the parties

so efficaciously, completely and effectually, if the presence of any person is very vital or essential, such person may be added. If the above object

is deemed to be the genus, then adding of such person to the proceedings is the species of which and what has been provided by this statute, has

been recognised by the Court of law all through. Keeping in juxtaposition the said ratio with the facts of the instant case, as the fourth respondent

seems to have purchased every right, interest and title of the mortgagors over the suit properties by means of a registered deed (the proof of which

is to be identified by the trial Court), the presence of the fourth respondent in the present suit has become highly essential and necessary for

effective and complete adjudication of the matter in hand, for the very reasoning that the fourth respondent has also become entitled to redeem the

suit mortgage from the defendant by the same decree and such right is being acquired by him under the law of redemption of mortgage. Having

thus viewed the whole matter and perused the impugned other. I agree fully with the reasonings and findings given by the Court below and

accordingly justify the same as was rightly contended by Mr. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the respondents. The grievance of the Bar for the

petitioner that the claim of the third party-fourth respondent has not been proved in accordance with law can be looked into by the trial Court

during the time of trial only, when the parties are given opportunity to adduce legal evidence. Thus, I do not come across with any infirmity or legal

laches in the impugned order and accordingly. I feel every hesitation to accept the contention of Mrs. Prabha Sridevan learned counsel for the

revision petitioner, while seeking admission of this revision.

In the result, for all the foregoing reasonings, the revision fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed by the learned

District Munsif, Chidambaram in I.A. 1653 of 1995 in O.S. 1227 of 1988 dated 29.11.1995 is confirmed and maintained. However, there will be

no order as to costs for either of the parties, under the circumstances.