DURGADEVI Vs. VEERADEVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the order passed in IA.No,47/2008 and IA.NO.48/2008 dated 19.3.2008 in OS.No,47/2005 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Aruppukkottai, refusing to implead the petitioners as proposed parties to the suit and appoint the 1st petitioner as guardian of the 2nd petitioner.

(2.) THE brief facts, which are essential for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition, are as follows:- THE 1st respondent/plaintiff has filed the above said suit for specific performance of contract against the 2nd respondent herein who is the father of the petitioners. THE 2nd respondent has executed a sale agreement dated 27.10.2003 to sell the suit schedule house property for a value of Rs.3,80,000/- in favour of the 1st respondent herein. In the said suit, the 2nd respondent filed his written statement inter alia disputing the sale agreement stating that it was obtained by the 1st respondent by way of fraud and coercive manner for the amount of Rs.80,000/- borrowed by the 2nd respondent. THE 2nd respondent has contended that the sale agreement executed in favour of the 1st respondent as well as the mortgage deed executed in favour of the 3rd respondent are void and therefore, the 1st respondent is not entitled to the discretionary relief prayed for by him.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of this court rendered in the case of V.Ravi @ P.V.Ravi Vs.B.Balakrishna & ten Others [2009-1-CTC-411], wherein it is held that although only the parties to the agreement will be the necessary and proper parties, but in the circumstances, the proposed parties taking a plea that the executant of the agreement was not the sole owner and they have got some right in the suit property mentioned in the agreement, they are proper parties and their presence is necessary to effectively and completely adjudicate upon all the real questions involved in the suit.