C ARUL THYAGARAJAN Vs. K MOSES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioner / 1st defendant, as against the order allowing the impleading petition filed by the third parties.

(2.) The brief facts which are necessary to decide this revision petition are as follows:

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner / 1st defendant would submit that in the suit 2nd item of the property, the father of the respondents 1 to 4 herein viz., Moses was a tenant and when so far no metes and bounds partition has been effected with respect to the plaint schedule properties, the subsequent purchaser - Moses, who is stated to have purchased major portion of the suit 2nd item of the property, ought not to have purchased the property and the sale deeds stated to be executed by the respondents 6 to 10 herein / defendants 6 to 8 shall not be valid. He would further submit that in order to grab the valuable portion of the property, the respondents 1 to 4 herein, colluding with the other respondents, have stated that their father have purchased major portion of the property in question. The respondents 1 to 4 herein are not necessary parties to decide the lis between the parties. The Court below, without considering the said aspect, has erroneously allowed the said impleading petition and therefore, the order impugned in this petition is liable to be set aside. Thus, he prayed to allow this civil revision petition.