RENGATHAN Vs. SANTHANAPAKIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.922/1984 against the petitioners 2 to 4 (appellants 2 to 4) and one Elayaperumal (4th Appellant) for declaration and recovery of possession of the property measuring to an extent of 1.08 Acre in Survey No.127-B/10, Chinnaparur Village, Vridhachalam Taluk. THE said suit was decreed by the trial Court and the first appeal in A.S.No.55 of 1991 was dismissed by the Sub Court, Vridachalam and as against that, the present second appeal has been filed and the same was admitted on 06.12.1993. Pending the second appeal, the fourth appellant Elayaperumal died on 02.10.1998 leaving behind the respondents 2 and 3 herein as his legal heirs and according to the petitioners, the respondents 2 and 3 are the only legal representatives of the deceased fourth appellant. Since the respondents 2 and 3 were not brought on record in time, the appeal abatted as far as the deceased Elayaperumal (4th appellant) is concerned. After a delay of 2261 days, the above petition has been filed by the first petitioner claiming to have purchased the suit property under three sale deeds dated 30.01.1984, 08.06.1994 and 09.07.1997 from the second petitioner, 4th petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 respectively and as such, claims to have stepped into the shoes of the petitioners 2 to 4. According to the petitioner, the right to continue the proceedings has devolved on him and on that ground seeks to get himself impleaded as the 5th appellant in the above second appeal. THE said petition is opposed by the 1st respondent.

(2.) IN the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent it is contended as follows:

(3.) IN support of the said contention, he relied upon various decisions of the Apex Court. IN a decision reported in AIR 1975 SC 2159 (Rikhu Dev Vs. Som Dass), the apex Court has observed that Order 22 Rule 10 is based on the principle that trial of a suit cannot be brought to an end merely because the interest of a party in the subject matter of the suit has devolved upon another during the pendency of the suit but that suit may be continued against the person acquiring the interest with the leave of the court. When a suit is brought by or against a person in a representative capacity and there is a devolution of the interest of the representative, the rule that has to be applied is Order 22, Rule 10 and not Rule 3 or 4, whether the devolution takes place as a consequence of death or for any other reason.