R SURYANARAYANAN Vs. TMT KODAI NAYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these Civil revision Petitions have been preferred by the petitioners, separately by challenging the order dated 15.07.2010 made in C.M.P.No.614 of 2010, C.M.P.No.615 of 2010, 612 of 2010 and 613 of 2010 in A.S.No.336 of 2009, 334 of 2009, 335 of 2009, 337 of 2009 respectively on the file of the VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. However, the point for determination in these revisions are one and the same.

(2.) MR.K.V.Venkatapathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the suit in O.S.No.869 of 2002 was filed by the second respondent herein against the first respondent and two others seeking declaration of title, permanent injunction and other consequential relief. The suit in O.S.No.2237 of 2004 was filed by the second respondent herein against the first respondent seeking mandatory injunction directing the defendant therein to demolish the abandoned water tank constructed on the roof of the plaint 'B' schedule property. The Suit in O.S.No.5122 of 2005 was filed by the first respondent against the second respondent, seeking mandatory injunction directing the defendant therein to demolish and remove two water tanks, two sheds put up by the defendant in the terrace and also to remove a grill gate filed in the staircase available approaching for the terrace and the sheds put up on the terrace and to remove the sump in the ground floor and other consequential relief. The suit in O.S.No.7343 of 2005 was filed by the second respondent against the first respondent herein seeking mandatory injunction directing the defendants in the suit to remove a sump and cement platform put up around the sump measuring 200 square feet described in Schedule 'C' property in the common passage of 'A' schedule property leading from the main gate to the entrance as stated in the schedule of property.

(3.) MR.K.Govi G.Janakiraman, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has no objection in allowing the revision petitions. MR.S.SureshKumar, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent vehemently opposed the revision petitions filed by the petitioner herein on the ground that the revision petitioner is only a subsequent purchaser and therefore, the judgment and decree passed against the Vendor of the petitioner herein is binding on him. Learned counsel also drew the attention of this Court to Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act and contended that the principle doctrine of lispendens is applicable and therefore, the petitioner herein cannot claim any right more than that was available to his vendor. According to the learned counsel, impleading the revision petitioner would cause delay in the disposal of all the four appeals pending before the court below.