RAJAPALAYAM TOWN AMMAN POTTAL MIDDLE NORTH STREET PALLAR COMMON FUND Vs. RAJAPALAYAM TOWN AMMAN POTTAL STREET DEVANDRA KULA VELALAR COMMUNITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein being third party to the Suit filed by the first respondent herein filed an Application in I.A. No. 1418 of 2006 in O.S. No. 107 of 2005 seeking to implead themselves as a party/defendant. The Suit has been filed by the first respondent herein in O.S. No. 107 of 2005 seeking for the relief of framing the scheme and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants in the Suit from interfering with the right to conduct the Chithirai Venkudai Festival on 14.4.2005. The said Suit has been filed on the ground that there was an earlier proceedings in O.S. No. 164 of 1981 in which, on the file of the Sub-Court, Srivilliputhur in which, the first respondent/plaintiff in the present Suit has been allotted 21/2 shares out of the 12 shares. Therefore, on that basis the present Suit on hand has been filed.

(2.) The petitioner herein filed the Application for impleading on the ground that out of the 21/2 share allotted to first respondent/plaintiff in the earlier proceedings. The petitioner is entitled to 11/4 share. According to the petitioner that even though, the petitioner is not a party to the earlier Suit, the petitioner is entitled to get the share since, at that point of time, the first respondent/plaintiff represented the petitioner as well. Hence, according to the petitioner, the petitioner is a necessary and proper party for deciding the Suit in O.S. No. 107 of 2005, since the first respondent has deliberately not impleaded the petitioner overlooking its share.

(3.) On the contrary, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the very Application is misconceived. The petitioners having filed a separate Suit in O.S. No. 68 of 2004, seeking for a partition of the said 11/4 share before the same Court, the said dispute cannot be adjudicated in the present Suit. According to the learned counsel, the issue involved in the present Suit is as to whether a scheme could be framed or not and therefore, the rights of the petitioner cannot be adjudicated in the present Suit. Further, the learned counsel has contended that the rights of the petitioner have not been shown to be affected and the reliance sought for is not against the petitioner and in any case, there is no cause of action for the plaintiff against the petitioners warranting the impleading of the petitioner.