MAHESH Vs. SIVANTHI GNANAMUTHU NADAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed, against the judgment and decree, dated 23.01.2014, made in O.S. No. 823 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tenkasi, and strike down the same.

(2.) The petitioner is the third party in the Suit in O.S. No. 823 of 2007, which was filed by the respondents 1 to 3 against the respondents 4 to 6. According to the petitioner, the judgment and decree, dated 23.02.2014, made in O.S. No. 823 of 2007 was obtained by the respondents 1 to 3 by playing fraud on the Court in collusion with respondents 4 to 6. No notice under Sec. 80 C.P.C. issued before the filing of the Suit. The respondents 4 to 6 did not conduct the Suit properly. The learned Judge failed to verify the description of the property in O.S. No. 728 of 2005 covered with description of the property in O.S. No. 823 of 2007. The relief of mandatory injunction sought for by the respondents 1 to 3 is not maintainable in civil proceedings. No Suit, can be filed, against the Government authority to sub divide and issue the patta. The relief sought for by the respondents 1 to 3 against the respondents 4 to 6 is not a civil right. The respondents not approached the Court with clean hands. The subject matter in O.S. No. 823 of 2007 is the same as that of in O.S. No. 728 of 2005 and the issue is pending in S.A. No. 15 of 2011, prayed for allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents filed counter along with the vacate stay petition and it is submitted that the property in question belonged to the respondents 1 to 3 and they have inherited the same from their forefathers. When the dispute arose between the respondents 1 to 3, the first respondent filed O.S. No. 620 of 2007 for partition, on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi. Subsequently, a compromise decree was passed on 22.08.2007, by recording the compromise memo. Based on the compromise decree, the respondents 1 to 3 approached the respondents 4 to 6 for sub -division and issue of patta. The sixth respondent failed to exercise his right and failed to measure and sub -divide the property. Therefore, respondents 1 to 3 filed Suit in O.S. No. 823 of 2007. The respondents 4 to 6 contested the Suit and after trial, Suit was decreed. The contentions raised by the petitioner were considered by the trial Court and then only decree was passed. The respondents 1 to 3 have not suppressed any material fact and did not obtain any decree by fraud. The petitioner was aware of the Suit filed by the respondents 1 to 3 and is claiming over the property was put forth by the respondents 4 to 6, which was considered by the learned Judge. The petitioner has no Locus standi to file the present Civil Revision Petition and the relief sought for in the petition is not maintainable.