BHARATHA PANICKER Vs. KRISHNAKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE third party to the suit O. S. No. 1033 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif of Poonmallee is the petitioner in revision. THE first respondent is the plaintiff and the second respondent is the defendent in the suit. From the copy of the plaint furnished in the typed set filed along with this revision. I find that the suit is a simple one for declaration of the possessory title of the plaintiff for the suit property and for vacant possession. THE suit is being contested by the defendant and the defendant claims that he has got right over the suit property. This is evident from the copy of the written statement included in the typed set. THE third party-petitioner in this revision filed I. A. No. 1557 of 1981 to implead himself as the second plaintiff in the suit. That application has been dismissed by the court below. Hence this revision.

(2.) MR. R. S. Venkatachari, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the claim of the petitioner is that he is the real owner of the suit property and the plaintiff is only a name-lender and hence the third party as the real owner is entitled to come on record as the second plaintiff. Learned counsel relies on the following citations: Gur Narayan v. Sheolal Singh1, Yelamanchilli Pitchayya v. Yelamanchilli Rattamma2, Rupam Pictures v. Changanlal3, Dinanath Kumar v. Hishi kanta Kumar4