M. DHARMALINGAM Vs. ANBU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the second defendant in O.S. No. 9165 of 1994 on the file of the learned XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The first defendant in the suit is the brother's wife of the second defendant/revision petitioner. The suit was filed by the respondents herein for the relief of declaration and for recovery of possession.

(2.) In the plaint, the plaintiffs/respondents would contend that the husband of the first plaintiff/first respondent namely Murugesan has purchased the suit property from the husband of the first defendant in the suit namely Devambal by a registered sale deed dated 11.05.1989. After purchase, the first defendant Devambal requested the husband of the plaintiffs/respondents to permit her to occupy a portion of the land on the Northern side for a nominal rent and accordingly, considering the fact that the husband of the first defendant Devambal who sold the property to the husband of the first plaintiff/first respondent herein died and she has no male member to support, she was permitted to occupy a small portion of the suit property. After occupying the property, the first defendant Devambal in collusion with the second defendant/ revision petitioner herein, clandestinely filed a suit in O.S. No. 7190 of 1989 claiming a share in the property occupied by her in which husband of the first plaintiff/first respondent herein impleaded himself as a party. Thus, the defendants have created a cloud over the title in the suit property and therefore, the suit was filed for declaration and recovery of possession.

(3.) In the suit, according to the plaintiffs/respondents, summons were served on the second defendant/revision petitioner. However, the second defendant/revision petitioner would contend that he came to know about the filing of the suit only on 09.08.1996 when the police came along with the decree holders to dispossess him from the suit property. According to the second defendant/revision petitioner, he has no knowledge about the exparte decree passed in the suit on 27.10.1995. Therefore, the petitioner has filed an application in I.A. No. 1409 of 1996 under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC praying to set aside the exparte decree dated 27.10.1995. According to the revision petitioner, he came to know about the exparte decree dated 27.10.1995 only on 09.08.1996 when he was sought to be dispossessed and therefore, the application was filed in time and there was no delay in filing the same. Such a contention urged by the revision petitioner was negatived by both the courts below, hence, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.