PARASAKTHI Vs. CHIDAMBARA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE third parties, who have filed I. A. No. 2 of 2006 before the Sub Court, Attur for impleading themselves as parties in A. S. No. 3 of 2005 are the revision petitioners herein. The Plaintiff/7th respondent herein has filed O. S. No. 76 of 2000 on the file of District Munsif Court, Attur for declaration of his title to the suit property and for injunction. The said suit, after contest, was decreed as prayed for on 25. 02. 2005. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment dated 25. 02. 2005, the respondents 1 to 6, 8 herein have filed A. S. No. 3 of 2005 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Attur. Pending the said appeal suit, the petitioners herein have filed the above said application to implead themselves as parties in the appeal, which was dismissed on 31. 03. 2006, hence, the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) MR. Murugamanickam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are daughter and son of the first respondent herein born through his second wife; that the suit property was purchased out of the sale consideration of joint family property in the name of the eighth respondent herein, who is the first wife of the first respondent herein and that the petitioners are entitled to get their share in it; that the court below without considering the above facts has erroneously dismissed the application to implead the petitioners as parties in the appeal and prayed for allowing of the revision petition.

(3.) MR. Sivakumaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 7 and 8 submitted the petitioners are fully aware that the suit was filed by the 7th respondent herein in O. S. No. 76 of 2000 before the District Munsif Court, Attur but they have not chosen to implead themselves as a parties in the suit as they are aware not entitledto any share in it; that the petitioners having allowed the trial court to pass a decree woke up and filed the present application to implead in the first appeal stage, that too, at the instance of the respondents 1 to 6 herein and prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.