MARAGADHAM AMMAL Vs. SAGADHEVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.72 of 1994 on the file of the Sub-Court, Dharmapuri. The suit for specific performance filed by one Sagadhevan was decreed ex-parte on 6/3/2003 and the decree holders have initiated execution proceedings in REP.No.38 of 2011. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.72 of 1994 by the Sub-Court, Dharmapuri on 6/3/2003 as being illegal.

(2.) I have heard Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel for Mr.Gowwtham Thelak V.B, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel for M/s.P.V.Law Associates for the contesting respondents 2 to 5.

(3.) Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the plaintiff, Sagadhevan had initially filed a suit for permanent injunction, in which suit, he had specifically made an averment that he had an agreement of sale with the 1st petitioner, Maragadham Ammal alone. There was no mention of the said Maragadham Ammal, representing her minor children and subsequently, the said suit has been withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit for specific performance. However, in the suit for specific performance, the plaintiff has impleaded the minors, as defendants and has sought for a decree for specific performance, in respect of even the share of the minors.