GOPALASWAMY KOUNDER Vs. RAMASWAMY KOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common petitioner in the two Civil Revision Petitions is a minor by name Muthuraj represented by his next friend Gopalaswami Rounder and the common petitioner in the two writ petitions is the said Gopalaswami Rounder who sought permission to act as the next friend of the minor, O.S. Nos. 630/97 and 172/98 on the file of the Munsiff s Court, Chittur were two money suits instituted by respondents 1 to 5 herein against one Nataraja Rounder, who was the paternal grandfather of the said minor, Muthuraj. The said suits were for realisation of money and were decreed against the said Nataraja Rounder. In execution of the decrees, six items of immovable properties having an extent of about nine acres belonging to the said Nataraja Rounder were sold in Court auction and purchased by the 6th respondent herein namely E.R. Ajoy who is a stranger. W.P. (C) 34847/2005 is filed challenging Ext. P8 order dated 11-11-2005 in E.A. 593/05 in E.P. 376/05 in O.S. 630/97 whereunder the permission sought to appoint Gopalaswami Rounder as the next friend of the minor was refused. In C.R.P. 1179/05, what is impugned in the order dated 11-11-2005 in E.A. 593/05 in E.P. 376/2000 in O.S. 630/97 whereunder the petition filed by the minor through his next friend under Order 21, Rule 90 read with Section 151, CPC challenging the Court auction sale has been dismissed holding that the minor has no locus stand! to file the petition in view of the order passed in E.A. 593/2005. In W.P.C. 34848/05 the order impugned is Ext. P8 dated 11-11-2005 in E.A. 595/05 in E.P. 465/01 in O.S. 172/98 whereunder permission to appoint Gopalaswami Rounder as the next friend of the minor has been declined. In C.R.P. 1180/ 05 the order impugned is the order dated 11-11-2005 in E.A. 594/05 in E.P. 465/05 in O.S. 172/98 whereunder the Court below has dismissed E.A. 594/05 filed under Order 21, Rule 90 read with Section 151, CPC on the ground that in view of the order passed in E.A. 595/05 the minor has no locus standi to file the petition.

(2.) I heard Advocate Sri. Sathish Nainan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the civil revision petitions and the writ petitions and Adv. Sri. Philip T. Varghese, the learned Counsel appearing for the 6th respondent, auction purchaser.

(3.) Advocate Sri Philip T. Varghese, the learned Counsel appearing for the auction purchaser made the following submissions before me in support of the impugned orders :-