MARIKANNU Vs. ALAGAMMAL(DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order passed by the Court below in dismissing the application filed by the Petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code to implead herself as a defendant in the suit.

(2.) The first respondent has filed a suit for specific performance as against the respondents/defendants 2 to 4. When the said suit was pending, the Petitioner filed the above application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C to implead herself as a defendant on the ground that he is the real owner of the property and that respondents 2 to 4/defendants have absolutely no right, title or interest over the property. This application has been dismissed by the Court below on the ground that the inter-se dispute with regard to title between the defendants and the Petitioner cannot be decided in a suit for specific performance. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the defendants are colluding with the plaintiff and are attempting to deprive the rights of the Petitioner over the suit property. The learned counsel further submitted that the Petitioner is a proper party, since in his absence, a final conclusion cannot be arrived at by the Court below regarding the title over the property. The learned counsel, in order to substantiate his arguments, relied upon the judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Robin Ramjibhai Patel .vs. Anandibai Rama @ Rajaram Pawar and others reported in 2016(6) CTC 765.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that in a suit for specific performance, the inter-se dispute with regard to the title as between the defendants and the Petitioner cannot be decided. If at all, the Petitioner is aggrieved, he has to institute an independent suit against the defendants and he cannot work out his remedy in the suit filed by the first respondent.