G.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR Vs. SARABUNISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decreetal orders, dated 14.07.2006, passed in E.A.No.31 of 2005 in E.P.No.101 of 2004 in O.S.No.55 of 1998, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram.

(2.) It is found that the petitioner / plaintiff has laid the suit, in O.S.No.55 of 1998, against the second respondent / defendant for recovery of money and it is further found that inasmuch as the second respondent / defendant did not contest the suit, the petitioner / plaintiff had been granted a decree in his favour as prayed for. The petitioner / plaintiff had put the above said decree in execution by filing E.P.No.101 of 2004 for further action against the property described in the execution petition for realization of the decreetal amount. At that stage of the matter, it is found that the first respondent, who is a stranger, had laid an application in E.A.No.31 of 2005 seeking for the impleadment of herself in the execution proceedings on the footing that she has purchased the property described in the execution petition from her predecessor-in-interest and as such the property described in the execution petition not being the property of the second respondent / defendant, she should also be impleaded in the execution proceedings initiated by the petitioner / plaintiff so as to enable her to put forth her objections as she is also a proper and necessary party to the execution proceedings. The said application had been resisted by the petitioner / plaintiff on the footing that there is no scope for impleadment of any third party in the execution proceedings as per law and if at all the first respondent has any claim in respect of the property concerned, it is for her to prefer necessary claim application in the execution proceedings and not the impleadment application as now laid and further, it is contended that the first respondent has no valid title to the property covered in the execution proceedings as claimed by her and hence, the application is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) It is found that the first respondent for the purpose of impleadment, has taken a plea that even prior to the institution of the suit, the second respondent / defendant had alienated the property concerned to one Ramkumar, by way of a sale deed, dated 15.10.1996 and the said Ramkumar had in turn alienated the same to one Oommen Babu by way of a sale deed, dated 19.02.1997 and the said Oommen Babu, after enjoyment of the said property, had alienated the same in favour of the first respondent for a valid consideration by way of a sale deed, dated 24.11.2003, and accordingly, it is only the first respondent, who had been enjoying the property concerned by effecting mutation and paying necessary charges in respect of the property concerned and thus, the petitioner / plaintiff is not entitled to proceed against the property concerned and thus, she is also a proper and necessary party for the execution proceedings.