VIJAYA VENKATARAMAN Vs. MUNIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 20.12.2012 made in I.A No. 14705 of 2012 in O.S. No. 6189 of 2012 on the file of IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The suit in O.S. No. 6189 of 2012 has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the first respondent who has got a decree against the property that had been purchased by the petitioner/plaintiff, without impleading her as one of the defendants in the Suit. The second respondent herein is only a formal party, being the Corporation of Chennai. Mrs. Jayanthi Sekaran, learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the sale of flat by the promoter in favour of the petitioner was not known to the first respondent, being an illiterate woman. The promoter, ignoring the sale deed executed in favour of the first respondent, flat owner of G-3 Vinayaga Villa, conferring the rights in the common area, without the knowledge of the first respondent and other flat owners, who purchased their respective flats from the flat owner, in a fraudulent manner, executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner. As the details were not available to the first respondent, she could not choose to implead the petitioner herein as one of the defendant in the suit in O.S. No. 2653 of 2005.

(2.) On the other hand, Mr. K. Ramu, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that having made the averments in paragraph No. 7 of the plaint, mentioning the name of Mr. Venkataraman husband of the petitioner, atleast the first respondent could have impleaded the said person. It was submitted that the sale deed had been executed in favour of the petitioner by the promoter/common vendor on 11.02.2002 itself and the petitioner is in occupation of the premises and got assessment of tax by the second respondent. The first respondent being the plaintiff could have verified the details of the sale deed with the concerned Sub Registrar or Corporation of Chennai, how without impleading the petitioner as one of the defendants, the first respondent got a decree against the promoter/common vendor, a wrong person and trying to execute the decree against the petitioner owner of the flat. Had the first respondent verified the ownership of Flat No. 4, she could have filed a suit by impleading the petitioner as one of the defendant.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner purchased the said flat from the promoter from whom the first respondent had purchased her Flat No. G3. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be ignored that the promoter has violated the terms and conditions of the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner and the first respondent and stating that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is an innocent purchaser like the first respondent for valuable consideration. The short point to be decided in the revision preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is, whether the revision is maintainable as against the respondents and whether the impugned order passed by the court below is legally sustainable. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State, through Special Cell, New Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afshan Guru & Ors., 2003 6 SCC 641wherein the Apex Court has held thus,