VASANTHA KRISHNAN Vs. JAYASHREE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is one of the legal heirs of one of the judgment debtors by name C.R.Jaganathan who was the second defendant in O.S.No.1256 of 1979. THE said suit in O.S.No.1256 of 1979 was filed by M/s.Rajkumar Chit Funds P. Ltd. against C.R.Jaganathan and others, a partnership firm, C.R.Jaganathan and Planiswamy for recovery of Rs.31,798/- and that suit was decreed as prayed for on 12.02.1980.

(2.) THEREAFTER, the decree was put to execution and the properties of the judgment debtors were brought to sale and one Velumani was the auction purchaser in that EP. THEREAFTER, the said auction purchaser, Velumani filed E.A.780 of 2003 for confirmation of the delivery of possession of the property which he purchased in the auction and during the pendency of that application, he died leaving behind his widow, son and mother. Therefore, the widow and son of late Velumani, the successful auction bidder filed E.A.Nos.781 of 2010, 782 of 2010 and 783 of 2010 to condone the delay in bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased Velumani, to set aside abatement and to bring on record the legal representatives of Velumani.

(3.) HE further submitted that the respondents filed a suit in O.S.No.1385 of 2009 for injunction against the petitioner and others and in that suit, they have stated in paragraph 5, that the deceased Velumani died on 15.07.2007 leaving behind his widow, son and the mother and a Will, and as per the Will, he has bequeathed his property in favour of his wife and son and therefore, they filed the suit for injunction and in the applications filed to implead themselves it was stated that the mother executed settlement in favour of the grandson namely, the second respondent and therefore, the mother was not made as a party and they have taken in-consistent stand for not impleading mother and this aspect was also not properly appreciated by the court below while allowing the application.