P P KALAIVANI Vs. M ARUMUGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision arises out of the order dated 28/8/2003 made in I. A. No. 229 of 2002 in O. S. No. 77 of 1996, by the learned District Munsif, Gobi. Third parties/proposed Defendants 7 and 8 are the Revision Petitioners.

(2.) THE relevant facts could briefly be stated thus:-

(3.) AGGRIEVED over the dismissal of the Application to implead themselves as Defendants 7 and 8, the Revision Petitioners have preferred this Revision. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners has contended that as per Act 1/1990, the Revision Petitioners have the right in the suit property and that the same cannot be nullified saying that the Agreement of Exchange is binding on the Revision Petitioners. Placing reliance upon the decision reported in 1993-2-L. W. 72 (M. SHANMUGHA UDAYAR Vs. SIVANANDAM AND 8 OTHERS), the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners has submitted that the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 1/1990 would also apply to the pending cases. It is submitted that till the properties are divided by metes and bounds, the daughters cannot be deprived of their share. It is her further contention that by impleading the proposed parties, multiplicity of proceedings could be avoided.