S VAITHIYANATHAN Vs. LAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aggrieved petitioner has filed the aforesaid CRPs. against the fair and final orders dated 23-9-98 passed in E.A. Nos. 34 to 36 of 1998 in E.A. No. 790/187 in E.P.No. 536/84 in O.S. No. 1111/74 on the file of the Additional District Munsif No. I, Tiruvannamalai.

(2.) The case in brief is as follows :-The petitioner is the 12th respondent in E.A. No. 790/87 and he filed these three applications to reopen E.A. No. 790/87, to strike out the names of respondents 11 to 13 from the order passed in E.A. No. 1022/84 and the order passed in E.A. No. 1022/84 dated 19-8-97 is not binding on the legal heirs of the deceased first respondent/judgment debtor. The petitioner and respondents 11 and 13 are the legal heirs of Unnamalai Ammal, one of the judgment debtors. The petitioner is not a party in E.A. No. 1022/84 filed by the assignee decree holders to recognise the assignment and also to bring on record the legal heirs of the deceased decree-holder. The legal heirs of the deceased Unnamalai Ammal were not made parties in E.A. No. 1022/84. Even during the pendency of E.A. No. 790/1987, E.A. No. 1022/84 was allowed and the legal heirs of Unnamalai Ammal were impleaded without hearing him and under the circumstances the fair order passed in E.A. No. 790/87 is not binding on the petitioner and the said E.A. No. 790/87 has to be reopened and the names of R. 11 to 13 has to be struck off from the order passed in E.A. No. 1022/84 and also sought the relief that the order is not binding on him. It is stated that by mistake respondents 11 to 13 have been joined as legal heirs in E.A. No. 1022/84 even while E.A. No. 790/87 is binding. Even during the pendency of S.A. No. 761/77, one of the appellants i.e. Appasamy was dead and no legal heirs have been impleaded. It was not brought to the notice of the Court by either party. The fact of death came to knowledge only on 19-8-81. When the heirs of Appasamy Pillai as well as Rathinasababathi Pillai have sold the property on 19-8-81 to Balakrishnan, who already entered into a sale agreement with Rathinasababathy Pillai, Appasamy Pillai and Ganapathy Pillai on 6-9-74. Ganapathy Pillai died during the trial of the suit and has not left any legal heirs. On 24-8-81 one of the legal heirs of Appasamy Pillai namely Thanikachalam executed released deed in favour of Balakrishnan. Thereafter Balakrishnan filed C.M. P.No. 3376/79 in the second appeal and it was dismissed. Since the legal heirs of the deceased Appasamy Pillai have not been impleaded even during the pendency of the second appeal, the appeal itself is abated with regard to Appasamy Pillai. The Court passed an order on 19-8-97 in E.A. No. 1022/84. But in the short cause of the order, Unnamalai Ammal has been described as dead and R11 to R13 have been styled as legal heirs. In fact no legal heir application has been filed in E.A. No. 1022/84 and as such the description in the short cause title is also wrong. Hence, the order passed in E.A. No. 1022/84 is not legally binding on the petitioner as well as the other legal heirs of Unnamalai Ammal. Hence, the petitions.

(3.) The respondents/Decree-holders resisted all the applications. The petitioner has entered appearance and participated in the proceedings relating to both execution applications. No specific reason has been assigned for reopening the matter, which has already been disposed of. In fact, the other two legal heirs of Unnamalai Ammal have not joined the petitioner in filing the petitions and they have also not supported the case of the petitioner. In E.A. No. 790/87 notice was ordered and the petitioner has also entered appearance through counsel Mr. R. Govindaraj, who was originally appearing for the 1st Judgment Debtor and also filed a counter in E.A. No. 790/87. The same counsel advanced argument on behalf of R. 11 to R. 13 in E.A. No. 1022/84 and only under such circumstances orders were passed bringing the legal heirs of Unnamalai Ammal as also parties. By mistake orders were passed in E.A. No. 790/87 and this cannot be now taken advantage of. It is not known under what provisions the present applications are filed by the petitioner. If the petitioner is really aggrieved, he has to move the appellate forum and not by filing these applications. It appears that the petitioner wants to squat on the property for some more time by filing vexatious applications.