R JAYARAMAN Vs. S RAJASUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition to set aside the fair and decreetal order of the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Cuddalore made in I.A.No.862 of 2011 in O.S.No.374 of 2011 dated 31.10.2011 by allowing this revision.

(2.) The case of the revision petitioner is that the 1st respondent herein namely S.Raja Sundaram has filed the above suit for declaration of his title over the suit schedule of property and for a mandatory injunction to delete the sale in favour of the 2nd respondent/1st defendant namely D.Jothi, which was executed by the 5th respondent. Though the 1st respondent do not have title or possession of the said property, the suit came to be filed by him, as if he possessed a valid title and physical possession over the suit property. In actual, the revision petitioner herein is the absolute owner of the property and he is in physical possession of the suit property. The suit property was purchased by the revision petitioner from the 2nd respondent herein namely Jothi, vide a registered sale deed dated 07.08.2003 for a valuable sale consideration. Whereupon the petitioner became the absolute owner of the suit property and subsequently the said property was sold to one Mr.Nithyaraj on 19.08.2004 through a registered sale deed by the revision petitioner.

(3.) Thereafter, the sale in favour of the said Nithyaraj was cancelled by the revision petitioner by executing a cancellation deed dated 25.06.2007. Thus the revision petitioner being the absolute owner, he is under peaceful possession. However, suppressing the above facts and without adding the revision petitioner as a party, the 1st respondent has filed the present suit as if he is the owner of the suit property and as if he is in physical possession. Therefore the revision petitioner has filed the above interlocutory application in I.A.No.862 of 2011, under Order 1 Rule 10 to implead himself as the 5th defendant in the suit. Whereas the learned trial Judge without proper appreciation of the above said facts, has dismissed the revision petitioner's application by holding that he is not a necessary party to the suit, since the relief of declaration of title and the mandatory injunction is sought by the 1st respondent as against the 2nd respondent and the title dispute solely remains between the 1st and 2nd respondent. It was further held that the revision petitioner is not required to be added as a party to the suit, as he is a subsequent purchaser of the property pendent lit and hence his purchase is hit by Doctrine of Lis pendens. The said approach of the trial Court is totally erroneous and the same is liable to the set aside, hence the present Civil Revision.