LAWS(MAD)-2015-8-179

MANOHARAN AND ORS. Vs. PANNEERSELVAM AND ORS.

Decided On August 19, 2015
Manoharan And Ors. Appellant
V/S
Panneerselvam And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above said second appeal came to be filed by N.Manoharan, the plaintiff in the original suit O.S.No.945 of 1988 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Kallakurichi, who suffered a decree dismissing the said suit in the hands of the trail Court, which decree was also confirmed by the lower appellate Court in A.S.No.206 of 1996 by a judgment and decree dated 08.02.1999.

(2.) Pending second appeal, K.Ramanathan seems to have got a sale deed dated 16.06.2008 registered as Document No.1692 of 2008 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Thiyagadurgam, in respect of the suit property claimed by the original appellant N.Manoharan to be his absolute property. Based on the purchase, the purchaser under the said document, namely K.Ramanathan along with the original appellant N.Manoharan has filed C.M.P.No.381 of 2015 for impleading K.Ramanathan as a co-appellant. As K.Ramanathan is a purchaser pendente lite, his purchase shall be subject to the result of the second appeal. However, the apprehension of the purchaser K.Ramanathan was sought to be allayed by the vendor by co-opting the purchaser as a petitioner for being impleaded as a co-appellant so that he can pursue the appeal to his satisfaction without any grievance that the vendor, after sale, lost interest and enthusiasm in conducting the second appeal. Under the said circumstances, though the purchaser is a not a necessary party, he can be impleaded as a proper party. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents also submits that the respondents are not going to be prejudiced and they do have no objection for impleading K.Ramanathan, the alleged purchaser from Manoharan, the original appellant, as a co-appellant. Hence, C.M.P.No.381 of 2015 is allowed and the first petitioner therein namely K.Ramanathan is impleaded as Appellant No.2 in the second appeal.

(3.) The Appellants 1 and 2 are represented by one and the same counsel. All the three respondents are also represented by one and the same counsel.