A.PATHIMA BEEVI Vs. THANGAPIRAKASAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs, who would echo the heart-burns of his clients to the effect that his clients three in number filed the suit seeking the reliefs of declaration of title over the immovable suit property and also for permanent injunction. It so happened that according to the plaintiffs, D-2 died 15 years anterior to the filing of the suit itself and hence, they filed I.A.No.180 of 2012 for impleading the legal representatives of D-2 namely, respondents 3, 4 and 5 herein. However, the legal representatives of D-2 resisted the application on various grounds, as though the cause of action found set out in the plaint was bad in law.

(2.) ACCORDINGLY , the Lower Court permitted the petitioners/plaintiffs to delete the name of D-2, but rejected the prayer of the plaintiffs to implead the legal representatives of D-2.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs would submit that D-2 and D-1 in collusion with each other created some bogus documents, as though the plaintiffs sold the suit property in favour of them. But, the Lower Court, without considering the real purport of the plaintiffs' case dismissed the application.