MANOHARAN Vs. SOLOMON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.138 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsif's Court at Kuzhithurai and the suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement for sale, etc. The said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and the Trial Court also executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 23.12.2013 as per the order in the execution proceedings. However, the subsequent E.A.No.230 of 2014 filed by the plaintiff for delivery of the property came to be dismissed, on the ground that the E.A.No.60 of 2015 filed by the subsequent purchaser was allowed. Challenging the same, this revision petition has been filed.

(2.) It is the case of the revision petitioner / plaintiff that on 25.09.2015, the defendant executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff, with a condition to execute a sale deed within 1 1/2 year from the date of agreement and received Rs. 40,000/- as advance from him at that time. Though the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance amount of Rs. 16,000/- so as to enable the defendant to execute the sale deed in his favour, the defendant did not come forward to do so, which forced the plaintiff to file a suit in O.S.No.138 of 2007 before the Civil Court, in which he had obtained a favourable exparte order on 01.12.2009. It is the further case of the revision petitioner / plaintiff that in consequence of the said decree, he filed E.P.No.30 of 2012 for execution of the order, which was also allowed.

(3.) The revision petitioner states that against the said judgment and decree, the defendant filed a petition to set aside the exparte decree, which is pending. While so, the defendant had executed a sale deed in Doc.No. 737 dated 05.04.2017 in favour of one Jaya Singh and his wife Prema Latha and therefore, the plaintiff had filed yet another suit in O.S.No.352 of 2007 against the subsequent purchasers, in which no order has been passed. It is further stated that after filing of E.P.No.30 of 2012, the alleged subsequent purchasers filed E.A.No.60 of 2015, seeking to adjudicate their claim in the capacity of additional Respondents 2 and 3, which was ordered by the Principal District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai, pursuant to which, E.A.No.230 of 2014 filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. Contending that there is no mandatory provision of law warranting impleadment of the subsequent purchasers, as the plaintiff had previously no knowledge of sale in favour of them, it is prayed that the order passed by the Principal District Munsif Court is liable to be set aside.