PERUMAL Vs. KALIYA PERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision is directed against the order of the district Munsif, Nagapattinam, made in I. A. No. 270 of 2002 in O. S. No. 298 of 2000, dated 09-12-2002, dismissing the Application filed under Or. 1 R. 10 (2)& Section 151 CPC. Third party is the Revision Petitioner.

(2.) THE relevant facts for disposal of this Revision petition could briefly be stated thus:- a) THE suit property relates to S. No. 22/6 in Puthur Village . According to the plaintiff, the suit property belongs to Jayaveera Anjaneyar Temple. One Ramachandra rao is the Hereditary Trustee. THE said Ramachandra Rao is said to have executed a lease deed on 07-06-1940 in favour of the Plaintiff's father palaniandi Pillai. After the death of his father Palaniandi Pillai, the plaintiff is cultivating the suit property. THE property has been sub-divided and patta bad been issued mentioning the existence of Kaliamman Temple, Kulam and others in the suit S. No. 22/6. In highhanded action, the Defendants have trespassed into the suit property and have put up the Sri Badrakaliamman Temple and installed the deity thereon. THE Defendants are also performing the poojas for the said Temple. THE Plaintiff had preferred a complaint before the Revenue officials and the Police. THE Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagapattinam, by the proceeding dated 20-5-1995 passed an order stating that the Temple and Kulam in the Suit S. No. 22/6 is in enjoyment of the Plaintiff. THE Temple is under the management of the Plaintiff. Since, the Defendants have trespassed into the suit property and had put up the Temple, the Plaintiff has filed the suit for mandatory injunction for issuance of direction to remove the Temple. b) THE Defendants have filed the Written Statement contending that the First Defendant had been appointed as the Trustee of Sri badrakaliamman Temple and that the Plaintiff cannot have any objection for the maintenance of the Temple by the First Defendant. c) I. A. No. 270 of 2002:- THE Revision Petitioner/third party has filed this Application under Or. 1 R. 10 (2) and Section 151 C. P. C. According to the Revision Petitioner, the First Defendant has already filed the suit in O. S. No. 253 of 1993, claiming himself to be the Trustee of badrakaliamman Temple, which was dismissed on 27-7-1996. THE Appeal in A. S. No. 60 of 1997 preferred by the First Defendant was also dismissed. Against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, S. A. No. 1873 of 99 has been filed by the First Defendant and the same is pending. While so, by making misrepresentation to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Officials, the First Defendant had obtained an order, as if, he is the Trustee of the temple. Hence, the proposed party has filed this Application to implead himself as the Fourth Defendant to put forth the correct facts. d) THE Plaintiff has not filed any counter statement to the Application in I. A. No. 270 of 2002, which was filed under Or. 1 R. 10 (2)& Section 151 CPC. Contending that the proposed party is no way connected with the suit, the Defendants have filed the counter statement contending that, if really the documents and the earlier proceedings are relevant that could be marked by examining the proposed party as the witness and that the proposed party cannot be impleaded as party to the suit. e) Upon consideration of the rival submissions of both the parties, the trial Court has dismissed the Application finding that the suit property in O. S. No. 253 of 1993 is not proved to be the suit property. It was further held that only after proper enquiry the H. R. &c. E. Officials have declared the First Defendant as the Trustee. THE learned Distant Munsif was of the view that no basis or reason has been made out for impleading the proposed party as the party to the suit.

(3.) IN view of the dispute between the proposed party and the First Defendant pending in S. A. No. 1873 of 1999 can the proposed party be said to be the necessary party ? and Whether the impugned order declining to implead the proposed party as the Fourth Defendant suffers from any material irregularity warranting interference ? are the only points that arise for consideration in this Revision Petition.