G RAJESWARAN Vs. KUPPAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner/proposed party aggrieved against the order dated 12.08.2008 passed in I.A.No.14689 of 2007 in O.S.No.71 of 2006 by the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in dismissing the application to implead him as a necessary party in the suit etc.

(2.) THE trial Court has passed order in I.A.No.14689 of 2007 in O.S.No.71 of 2006 inter alia observing that the revision petitioner/proposed party is not a necessary party to decide the issues involved in the suit and without impleading him a just and proper decision can be rendered in the suit and resultantly, dismissed the application.

(3.) IT is the further case of the revision petitioner that on 03.11.2002 the said L.Rs. of Gopal Reddy executed a General Power of Attorney in his favour authorizing him to sell, mortgage or enter into an agreement of sale and to do all acts necessary to alienate their undivided share in the said property and based on the General Power of Attorney he spent huge amounts and obtained the records and patta for the said property on 23.4.2003 and the possession of the property was given to him and on the basis of the Power of Attorney, he entered into an Agreement of Sale of undivided half share in the said property to M/s.R.K.N. Construction on 03.4.2003 and the 5th respondent D. Selvam and his children entered into an agreement with him dated 04.12.2002 agreeing to sell their remaining undivided half share in the said property and handed over the possession to him and thus he came into possession of the entire property. Added further, it is the plea of the revision petitioner that the 6th respondent has obtained a sale deed from L.Rs. of Gopal Reddy as if they are the absolute owners of 2850 sq.ft. situate in the western half of the suit schedule property and sold the same for Rs.4,80,000/- as per sale deed dated 16.6.2003 bearing Document No.3332 of 2003 of Sub Registrar's Office, Virugambakkam which is invalid in law and not binding on him and further that the 6th respondent has purchased the 5th respondent's undivided half share in suit schedule property for Rs.7,00,000/- on 16.6.2003 as if he has purchased the eastern half of the suit schedule of the property bearing Document No.3329 of 2003 of Sub Registrar's Office, Virugambakkam and moreover, the 6th respondent has executed a sale deed in favour of 5th respondent conveying 333 sq.ft of land in the eastern side of schedule of property as per sale deed dated 16.6.2003 bearing Document No.3330 of 2003 of Sub Registrar's Office, Virugambakkam and the same is not binding and hence, he has filed the suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 16.6.2003 is not binding on him and that the collusion between the respondents is clear in not adding R.K.N. Construction as necessary defendants in the suit O.S.No.71 of 2006 and unless he and the said M/s. R.K.N. Construction has made as necessary parties, they will be put to very much loss and hardship and therefore, the application to implead him as a necessary party has been projected before this Court.