S K KUMARASWAMI Vs. S R SOMASUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three matters arise out of the same suit o. S. No. 1101 of 1987. For the purpose of in the suit.

(2.) C. R. P. No. 2338 of 1994 is against an order dated 23. 12. 1993 made by the trial Court on the preliminary issue of payment of court-foe paid in the suit. Defendants 1 to 3 are the petitioners therein. The plaintiff, the 7th and 9th defendants are the respondents. The 9th defendant was later given up in the revision petition. C. R. P. No. 2339 of 1994 is against an order of the same date, made in I. A. No. 452 of 1993 permiting the plaintiff to amend the plaint by subsiting'sec. 40'of the Court-fees Act in paragraph 21 of ttat plaint. C. M. A. No. 844 of 1994 is against an order made on the same date in I A. No. 1358 of 19s7 granting injunction restraining the appellant from or encumbering the suit property in any matter till the disposal of suit.

(3.) RECENTLY, the plaintiffs'elder brother has entered into some sort of arrangements with the first defendant. He is therefore no longer interested in the suit, since his claim appears to have been settled by some arrangement. The details are not fully available to him. He was figuring as the first plaintiff. He has been transposed as the 10th defendant as per the orders of the Court in I. A. No. 89 of 1993. Certain items of properties have been sold by defendants 1 and 2 after the filing of the suit. Those transactions are hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and they are not binding on the plaintiff and the transferees will not get any right. Such pendente lite transferees are not necessary parties. The cause of action for the suit arose on 27. 5. 1967 when late Rangasamy died and on subsequent dates including the filing of the suit in O. S. No. 37of 1984, on 16. 8. 1984 when the collusive decree in that suit was filed and subsequent dates when the parties continued to be joint and the properties are managed by the first defendant during the past few months when the first defendant's hostile attitude became open and when the plaintiff came to know several clandestine transactions brought about by the first defendant to the detriment of the plaintiff, on subsequent dates when the plaintiff demanded partition and when the first defendant adopted an evasive attitude. The 9th defendant has been impleaded because he was a party to O. S. No. 37 of 1984.