KULANTHAI RAJ Vs. S.SORNALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the impleadment of the third party as the 7th defendant, the plaintiffs in the suit has filed this revision.

(2.) The revision petitioners are plaintiffs in O.S.No.120 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Devakottai, which was filed against the respondents 2 to 7/defendants 1 to 6 for declaration and permanent injunction. Pending suit, the 1st respondent who is a third party to the suit has filed an impleading petition to implead himself as 7th defendant in the suit contending that he purchased 18 cents, i.e., the share of the 2nd respondent/1st defendant in the suit property, through the power of attorney of the 2nd respondent/1st defendant by a registered sale deed dated 26.05.2014. The revision petitioners/plaintiffs filed counter opposing the impleading petition contending that the alleged purchase by the 1st respondent/7th defendant was pending suit and therefore, it is hit by Section 52 of the Tranfer of Property Act. However, the trial Court holding that for effective adjudication of the suit and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, impleadment of the 1st respondent/7th defendant is necessary, allowed the impleading petition, against which, the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed this revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioners would contend that the 1st respondent/7th defendant being the purchaser pending suit, he is neither a necessary nor a proper party and the alleged purchase is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. He would further state that the impleading petition has been filed after the cross examination of the plaintiff side witnesses and therefore would state only to prolong the trial, such a petition is filed. He would also contend that the learned trial Court after finding that the alleged purchase is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, ought not to have allowed the impleading petition holding that it would help for effective adjudication and would avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Thus, he would pray for setting aside the impugned order. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision in R.J.Paul vs. S.N.Kulasekaran (2010) 2 MLJ 1057.