KASTHURI Vs. BHASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Revisions have been directed against the orders passed by the Lower Court in C.M.P.Nos.30/2007,32/2007 and 33/2007 in A.S.No,670/2005 dated 11.07.2008.

(2.) THE petitioners herein are the 4th and 5th respondent in the petition filed before the Lower Court and ranked as respondents 5 and 6 in the appeal. THE petitioner before the lower court is the 1st respondent herein. THE relief against respondents 2 to 4 have come up in these revisions.

(3.) THE contentions of the petitioners/R4&5/R5&6 are briefly stated as follows: One P. DhanaGopal-(deceased) is the bonafide purchaser of the property, the house bearing Door No,29 Alathur Subramania Achari street, comprised in R.S.No.1451/1 Block No,36 from one Stephen in and by a sale deed dated 18.10.1993 registered as document No.1679/1993. Petitioners in the revision petitions are the wife and son of the said Dhanagopal. THE said property is comprised in R.S.No.1451/1 Block No,36 at Vepery Revenue Division. THE said property was mortgaged by a deed dated 16.05.1991, registered as document No,545/91. On the failure of mortgagors, to repay the amounts due under the said mortgage the mortgagee brought the property for sale in exercise of his right under Section 69 of the T.P.Act to realise the amounts in due and hence the petitioner purchased the same. THEy got the property by a registered settlement deed dated 11.09.1985 registered as document No.1083 of 1985. A reading of the plaint would show that the property purchased by the 4th respondent is comprised in R.S.No.1457 and the measurement of the said property is 216 sq.ft. No boundary description are given to the suit property. On all counts the suit property is entirely a different one from the property purchased by them. In such circumstances the respondent in these Revision petitions is a unnecessary party to the suit. THE petitioners property is comprised in R.S.No.1451/1 and the respondent property in R.S.1457 is a different one. After impleadment of the petitioners herein they filed a detailed written statement reiterating the facts on October 2003. THE lower court uphold the contention that the two properties are different and the respondent has no title to property comprised in R.S.No.1451/1. THEy further submit that if the amendment sought for is allowed it would cause great prejudice to them.