VELAYUTHAM Vs. SELLAMUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dtd. 21/4/2017 made in I.A.No.302 of 2017 in O.S.No.187 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Perambalur.

(2.) The petitioner is defendant in O.S.No.187 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Perambalur. The respondent filed the said suit for permanent injunction, restraining the petitioner from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The petitioner filed written statement on 21/10/1999 and additional written statement on 29/11/2016 and is contesting the suit. The petitioner, on 9/1/2017, filed I.A.No.302 of 2017 under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., to reject the plaint in O.S.No.187 of 1997. According to the petitioner, the suit property belongs to him and is enjoying the suit property. He handed over the suit property to one Ramasamy, Duraisamy and Ponnusamy. With the permission of the petitioner, the said three persons were cultivating in the suit property. The said Ramasamy died issue less, Duraisamy died leaving his son Kulandhaivel; and Ponnusamy died leaving his sons Muthusamy and Krishnamoorthy. After their death, the legal heirs viz., Kulandhaivel, Muthusamy and Krishnamoorthy were enjoying the suit property and cultivating with the permission of the petitioner. They do not have any title with regard to the suit property. Ramasamy did not have any right to sell 1 acre and 17 cents of suit property to Periyasamy in the year 1970. Similarly, Muthusamy and Krishnamoorthy, sons of Ponnusamy also did not have any right to sell 1 acre and 17 cents of suit property on 11/7/1984 to Periyasamy. The sale deeds dtd. 23/6/1970 and 11/7/1984 are executed without having any legal right and are void documents. The said documents are not binding on the petitioner.

(3.) The respondent filed counter affidavit and stated that the respondent purchased the suit property by deed of sale dtd. 22/4/1997. The petitioner filed O.S.No.140 of 1997 on 30/4/1997, only against the vendors of the respondent and respondent was not added as party defendant in the said suit. The vendors of the respondent have no interest in the suit property on the date of filing of the suit. The alleged decree in O.S.No.140 of 1997 will not bind the respondent. The respondent, neither in the written statement nor in the additional written statement, raised this issue and it amounts to waiving of imaginary right. The petitioner has come out with the present I.A. at the appellate stage, when the suit was posted for cross-examination of P.W.1. Even after coming to know of the purchase by the respondent, the petitioner did not implead the respondent in the suit in O.S.No.140 of 1997. With collusion of the vendors of the respondent, the petitioner obtained decree in the said suit. The said suit is not binding on the respondent. The petitioner has not filed any document. The documents filed are not connected to the suit property. None of the ingredients of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. were attracted to the petition. The petition is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the I.A.No.302 of 2017. The learned Judge, by the order dtd. 21/4/2017, considering the averments in the affidavit, counter affidavit and plaint, provisions of C.P.C. viz., Sec. 11 and Order VII Rule 11, dismissed the I.A.