LAWS(MAD)-2009-4-517

CHENNAI JANANAYAGA MADHAR SANGAM Vs. S R NAIDU

Decided On April 21, 2009
CHENNAI JANANAYAGA MADHAR SANGAM Appellant
V/S
S.R. NAIDU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed Interlocutory Application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of C.P.C. to implead the Sangam as second defendant in the suit filed by the first respondent. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner, the following averments are found:-1. (i) THE first respondent filed suit for Permanent Injunction restraining the second respondent herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property as if he is an permissive occupant of 3rd floor of suit schedule property and tenant in respect of first floor of the suit property. THE suit property belonged to second respondent and she executed a registered Gift Deed dated 6.6.2008 and conveyed the ground floor of the suit property to the petitioner and in pursuance of the same the petitioner took possession and enjoying the same with absolute right without any hindrance. THE person who is not in possession of the property is not entitled to seek relief of permanent injunction.1.(ii) First respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.1342 of 2007 on the file of XIV Small Causes Judge, Chennai to permit him to deposit monthly rents before court in the capacity of tenant and after full fledged trial, the said court dismissed R.C.O.P. on the ground that there is no tenant/landlord relationship between the first respondent and second respondent and the first respondent preferred appeal in R.C.A.No.107 of 2008 which is pending before IV Small Causes Court, Chennai. THE petitioner is the owner of the ground floor and in possession of the property and hence the petitioner has to be impleaded as second defendant in the suit.

(2.) IN the counter filed by the first respondent it is alleged as under:-When this respondent filed R.C.O.P. for deposit of rent in the Court, the second respondent has contended that the first respondent was not in possession, and she alone is in possession, but while filing the counter in R.C.O.P., it is categorically admitted that she is in possession as a licensee. Therefore, there could be a legal inference that the version of the petitioner is false and also perjury and hence the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted under Section 191(b) r/w Section 340 of Cr.P.C. It is a clear case of collusion between the petitioner and 2nd respondent. The suit for injunction filed by this respondent is in respect of his "right in personam" against 2nd respondent alone. The petitioner's Sangam is not registered under Co-operative Societies Act and it cannot maintain any suit or proceeding before the Court of law. Hence the petition has to be dismissed.

(3.) THE suit was filed on 06.08.2007. But the gift deed in favour of this petitioner executed by the second respondent was on 6.6.2008, i.e., after the institution of the suit. In this regard, it has to be seen whether a purchaser "Pendente Lite" can be impleaded as a party to the suit and it has to be incidentally found whether the petitioner is a necessary party to the suit for complete adjudication of the case. Hence, this Court need not go into the merits of the suit which is for trial Court to discuss and to reach a conclusion.