KRISHNAN Vs. NARASIMMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner had purchased the share of 5th respondent in I.A.No.115 of 1999 in the partition suit O.S.No.77 of 1981 filed by the respondents 3 and 4 herein. It appears that the revision petitioner had purchased the share of the 5th respondent during the pendency of the partition suit. Preliminary decree has already been passed and the plaintiffs have filed an application for passing of final decree in I.A.No.115 of 1999. The revision petitioner filed an application to implead himself as a party to the said proceedings and the same was resisted by the respondents herein and the trial court had dismissed the petition on the ground that he is not a necessary and proper party to the proceedings, based upon the decision of this court reported in Bakthavatsalam v. Anjapuli and others (2001)1 MLJ.101).

(2.) But now the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has placed the decision rendered by this court in Sengamalam, S. v. The Idol of Arulmighu Ranganathaswami, Srirangam (1999-3-L.W.888) (S.S.SUBRAMANI, J.) wherein the learned Judge relied upon the decision reported in (1999)2 SCC 577 = 1999-3-L.W.277 (Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur and others) wherein it was observed;

(3.) Learned advocate for the respondents opposed the petition on the ground that the revision petitioner had purchased the property during the pendency of the suit and he has not chosen to implead himself in the suit and that therefore, he cannot be impleaded as a party in the final decree proceedings.