D KRISHNAMOORTHI Vs. ELANJIAM ALIAS CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge involved in this revision pertains to the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Chidambaram in I. A. No. 1653 of 1995 in O. S. No. 1227 of 1988 dated 29. 11. 1995 filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the code of Civil Procedure is to implead the fourth respondent herein. On ordering notice of motion, the parties made their appearance through the Bar. With the consent, I have heard both sides in the main revision itself and disposed of the same by delivering this order.

(2.) IT is stated that the suit properties belonged to the respondents 1 to 3 herein which were hypothecated by them by means of an usufructuary mortgage in favour of the revision petitioner herein and accordingly, he was put in possession of the same. Further, it appears that subsequently, the respondents 1 to 3 herein filed a suit for redemption in o. S. No. 1227 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif, Chidambaram, which is being resisted by the defendant. Pending disposal of the suit, it is stated that on 26. 12. 1991, the fourth respondent herein seems to have purchased the all rights of the properties subjected to the mortgage, by means of a registered document and thus, he became the absolute owner of the properties. This transfer, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, was subject to the discharge of the mortgage amount due to the mortgagee. Since the fourth respondent has purchased the mortgaged properties, and he was also in possession of the same as a tenant, he assumed every power and thus, stepped into the shoes of the mortgagars and in view of the same, he has also become entitled to redeem the mortgage. For the said reasonings, he has filed the petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead him as one of the plaintiffs in the suit, as he has got every subsisting and valuable right in the suit properties. Though this petitioner was resisted by the mortgage by inter-alia contending that he (the fourth respondent herein) has no locus standi to come into the picture and he has no right to get himself impleaded in the present litigation as the mortgagee has already got the execution of the usufructuary mortgage upon the suit properties. Having heard the rival contentions and perused the supporting documents, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that for all the reasonings given in the impugned order, the petition is allowed and accordingly, the fourth respondent is ordered to be impleaded as fourth plaintiff is the suit. Aggrieved at this, the present revision is canvassed by the defendant.