R RATHINAVEL CHETTIAR Vs. V SIVARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V. Sivaraman (plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed a suit against Shakunthala, widow of his brother, for declaration of title to the suit property and for a direction to the defendants, namely, Shakunthala and Vinayagam, to put him in possession of that property and to pay the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 18,000. 00 together with further mesne profits. The suit was decreed by the trial court on 5/09/1983 against which Shakunthala filed an appeal in the High court and during the pendency of the appeal in that court, the present appellants were impleaded as respondents by order dated 20/2/1985 passed in C. M. P. No. 5008 of 1984. It was indicated in that application that three days after the decree was passed by the trial court, plaintiff (respondent No. 1 sold the suit properties to the appellants and since the properties in suit had been assigned to them, they had to be impleaded as respondents as required by Order 22 Rule 10 C. P. C.

(2.) Respondent No. 1, it appears, filed an application (C. M. P. No. 15941 if 1987 in the High court for dismissing the suit as notpressed as he had compromised the dispute with Shakunthala and wanted the compromise to be recorded. This application was allowed by the High court by its judgment dated 28/10/1987 and it is against this judgment that the present appeals have been filed.

(3.) Mr. K. Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, has contended that the suit which was decreed by the trial court should not have been dismissed as not pressed at the instance of respondent No. 1 as he had already transferred the suit properties in favour of the appellants who, being transferees-PENDENTE-LITE were vitally interested in the decree remaining intact. It was further contended that respondent No. 1 had been held to be the owner of the property in suit by the trial court and it was after a declaration was granted in his favour that the property was purchased by the appellants. The dismissal of the suit as not pressed at the appellate stage, had the effect of destroying the decree passed in favour of respondent no. 1 and since the property in question, which was the subject matter of the suit, had already been transferred in favour of the appellants, the suit could not have been dismissed as not pressed at the instance of respondent No. 1 who had ceased to be the owner of the property and in whose place the present appellants had become the owners and were, in that capacity, impleaded as respondents in the appeal.