CHINNASAMY NAIDU Vs. ANSAVENI ATONAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, in I.A.No.595 of 1984 refusing to implied the revision petitioner who is a third party, as. party in O.S.Mo.153 of 1984, which is a suit for partition filed by respondents 1 and 2 against the third respondent. The third party-revision petitioner is none other than the husband of the third respondent. He claimed independent right in some of the items included in the suit. But, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the application on the ground that if he has got any right in the properties, he can file a separate suit.

(2.) In my view, there is no need to refer the petitioner to a separate suit. In a suit for partition of joint family properties, if a stranger claims some of the items in dispute in his own absolute right he can be added as a party, for, the court has to come to a decision whether those properties would be available or not for partition and for that purpose the stranger would have to be before Court. If authority is needed for that proposition, it has to be found in PARAMASIVAM v. ADILAKSHMI AMMAL, (1952)1 M.L.J.473: 65 L.W.781= A.I.R.1953 Mad.618. The revision is allowed. The court below will implead the revision petitioner as a party and proceed with the suit as expeditiously as possible. No costs.