AYYAPPAN CHELLAPPAN Vs. AYYAPPAN THANKAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit involved in this revision petition is one for partition and also for setting aside a partition deed relating to plaint -schedule items 1 and 2. The first Defendant is the revision Petitioner and the Plaintiff is the Respondent. The revision is against an order of the Court below on a preliminary issue namely, "whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties and misjoinder of causes of action."

(2.) THE facts are concisely stated thus: The plaint items 1 and 2 were purchased in the name of the Plaintiff and Defendants 1 and 2 in the year 1960. Later the Defendants 1 and 2 without the consent of the Plaintiff entered into a partition deed No. 161/89 and the said deed is sought to be set aside. One -third share of the Plaintiff in item 1 and 2 is liable to be allotted to him. The plaint item No. 3 belongs to the first Defendant and his deceased brother Gopalan who died issueless and on his death, his half share devolved on Plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 4 and thus the Plaintiff is entitled to one -tenth share over plaint item No. 3.

(3.) IT is an admitted case that plaint items 1 and 2 were purchased in the name of Plaintiff and Defendants 1 and 2 and therefore Defendants 3 and 4 are not necessary parties in respect of those items. It is true that plaint item No. 3 was jointly purchased in the name of first Defendant and deceased Gopalan. Since Gopalan died issueless Plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 3 are entitled to claim one -tenth share over plaint item No. 3. Thus it is explicit that Defendants 3 and 4 have absolutely no interest over items 1 and 2 and they are unnecessary parties in so far as those items are concerned. However, the Court below observed that Defendants 3 and 4 had claimed share over plaint item No. 3. In that view of the matter the Court below found that the suit is not bad for misjoinder of parties. The view taken by the Court below is challenged in this revision petition.