T PALANISAMY GOUNDER Vs. SANKARA RAMANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIRD defendant in suit O.S. No. 671 of 1998 and third respondent in I.A. No. 1202 of 1998, on the file of the Sub Judge, Erode is the revision petitioner.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are as follows: The revision petitioner had purchased a building at No. D. No. 28, Pon Veethi, Erode on 15.7.1988 from one Thiru S. Gowthaman, fifth respondent. The said property was under the tenancy of one Thiru A.V.G. Ponnuswamy Chettiar. After the purchase, a request was made for the attornment of tenancy. Without conceding, the tenant along with his three sons as also a partnership firm, consisting of himself and his sons presented a plaint in an Original Suit on 11-8-1998, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Erode against three defendants viz., the petitioner's vendor, petitioner and one Mandi Venkata Naicker. Dharman under Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure. They had prayed for a declaration and permanent injunction to declare that the alienation of plaint schedule properties is null and void and not binding on Mandi Venkata Naicker Dharmam and to frame a proper scheme for the enforcement and smooth running of the trust and for a permanent injunction from interference. The Sub-Court numbered the suit and has taken it on the file as O.S. No. 338 of 1988, after granting leave under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure in I.A. No. 496 of 1988 on 11.8.1988. The revision petitioner and his vendor applied to the Sub-Court to set aside the said order granting leave and to dismiss the same. In the meanwhile, the plaintiffs in the suit made an endorsement, requesting for the return of the plaint with liberty to give notice and to proceed. Accordingly, the plaint was returned on 2.12.1988.

(3.) I have heard the counsel appearing on either side and considered the matter carefully.