PAVAYEE AMMAL Vs. K SAKTHIVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVEIGHING the order dated 30.9.2008 passed in I.A.338 of 2008 in O.S.No.153 of 2003 by the Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi, this civil revision petition is focussed.

(2.) THE quintessence and epitome of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:- THE first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.153 of 2003 before the Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi, for specific performance of the agreement to sell as against respondents 2, 3 and 4 herein. During the pendency of the suit, the revision petitioner herein filed the I.A.No,338 of 2008 under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. for getting herself impleaded as one of the defendants on the ground that she is a co-sharer relating to the suit property. THE lower Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the I.A. Being disconcerted and aggrieved by the said order, this civil revision petition is focussed on various grounds.

(3.) AT this juncture I would like to point out that the lower Court could have refrained from delving deep into the right of the revision petitioner concerning the suit property. The only point which actually fell for consideration before the lower Court was to see as to whether the revision petitioner is having any locus standi to get herself impleaded as one of the defendants. In a suit for specific performance, it has become a trite proposition of law that a person claiming himself to be a co-sharer is not a necessary party. Even the decision relied on by the lower Court reported in 2005(4) L.W.25 would clarify the position that in a suit for specific performance, third parties to the agreement are not necessary parties. As such, on that sole ground, the I.A. could have been dismissed. However, the lower Court went to the extent of giving a finding that there was partition earlier among the male members, including their deceased father and that item 2 of the suit property was excluded on the ground that it was the exclusive property of D1 etc. In my opinion, such findings are beyond the scope of the said I.A. Hence, I would like to set aside such findings leaving the revision petitioner to take appropriate steps, if she has been advised to do so in separate proceedings.