THAI SAI NALAVIDUTHIDHARMA Vs. NARAYANA CHETTIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of learned Principal District Munsif Judge, Poonamallee, passed in I.A. No.238 of 2017 in O.S. No.155 of 2011, dtd. 24/10/2018.

(2.) I.A. No.238 of 2017 was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amending the plaint, especially the prayer. It is the case of the first respondent/plaitiff that Thai sai Nala Vidudhi Dharmastapanam Society was registered as Society No.243 of 1973 with one Chellappa Chetty as its president. This society purchased the house site from one Sadasivam on 4/3/1976. A building was constructed by the society for housing a maternity home and it came to be stopped when it reached lintel level and the building could not be completed for want of funds. The president and other members of society have become dormant. The first respondent is the surviving member of the said society and he is one among the founding members of the society. The second petitioner had registered a fake society in the name of Thai sai Nala Vidudhi Dharmastapanam in registration No.426 of 1999 and again he registered another fake society in registration No.560 of 2005. With the help of these fake societies, he created a rental agreement dtd. 22/2/2008 in favour of his driver, the third respondent herein, and he executed a lease deed dtd. 6/3/2008 in favour of his son, the fourth respondent.Not only that he executed a settlement deed in respect of the suit property in favour of his son, the the fourth respondent on 8/1/2013l The fourth respondent filed a suit in O.S. No.3 of 2014 on the file of Sub Court, Poonamallee, claiming title to the suit property on the basis of a registered settlement deed dtd. 8/1/2013. The second petitioner and the fourth respondent created encumbrance over the suit property by creating settlement deed dtd. 8/1/2013. Originally the suit was filed for relief of declaration that the rental agreement dtd. 22/2/2008 in favour of the third respondent and lease agreement dtd. 6/2/2008 in favour of the fourth respondent to be declared as null and void and not binding the original society namely,Thai Sai Nala Viduthi Dharmastapanam, registered as society No.243 of 1973. In view of the execution of settlement deed by the second petitioner in favour of his son, the fourth petitioner, in respect of the suit property, there is a necessity to amend the plaint and the prayer by including the following reliefs:

(3.) This amendment petition was resisted by the petitioners and other respondents alleging that the first respondent knew about the registration of these societies even at the time of filing the suit. However, he has not chosen to seek the prayers to declare the first and second defendant societies as null and void. The suit was filed in the year 2011. The amendment petition was filed only in the year 2017. The aforesaid prayers are barred by limitation. The first defendant is non-existent now and therefore the suit is bad for misjoinder of party. The second petitioner filed a petition to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and as a counter blast to that petition, the amendment petition was filed. First respondent filed a petition to transfer the case in Tr. O.P. No.103 of 2014 and that was dismissed. Without arguing the petition filed to reject the plaint, this petition is filed only to protract the proceedings. The first respondent has no locus standi to file a suit. The property is in possession and enjoyment of the second petitioner. First respondent ought to have claimed these prayers at the time of filing the suit and he can not claim now,as they are barred by limitation.