M KUPPUSWAMY NAIDU Vs. PARAKALA MUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The fourth respondent in O.S.No.318 of 1989 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Tirupati is the petitioner in this revision. He is questioning the order made in I.A.No.101/92 in O.S.No.318/89, dt.3-12-1992, wherein, the learned Subordinate Judge recorded a compromise between the plaintiff - D.3 and the proposed plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 in respect of a part of subject- matter of the suit. The other defendants, admittedly, are not parties to the said compromise and the suit is still pending in all other respects.

(2.) It is necessary to narrate a few relevant facts. The first respondent who is the plaintiff - His Holiness Sri Srimad Abhinava Ramanuja Brahma Thanthra Swathanthra Parakala Swamiji Mathadhipathi of Parakala Mutt, represented by its General Power of Attorney Holder - N. Narasimha Reddy (hereinafter referred to as 'Parakala Mutt') filed the suit for a permanent injunction against the defendant Nos.1 to 4 who are the respondent Nos.6 to 8 and the petitioner herein, respectively.

(3.) The plaintiff's case is that Parakala Mutt has a1 /4th share in Ac.7.70 cents wet in Survey No.145; Ac.48.60 cents wet in S.No.147/1 and Ac.13.35 cents dry in S.No.148/2 of Avilala village, Chittoor District, which comes to Acs.17 and odd and as the defendants are interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, the suit was filed for the relief of permanent injunction. By virtue of General power executed by Mathadhipathi, the suit was filed by the General power of Attorney Holder. The defendant Nos.2 to 4 are contesting the suit. While so, respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein, filed an application- I.A.No.586 of 1990 to implead them as plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 in the suit on the ground that they have purchased Ac.2.00 cents of land in S.No.148/2 from the plaintiff and therefore, they are proper and necessary parties to the suit. The 8th respondent herein, who is the third defendant in the suit filed I.A.No.101/92 under Order 23, Rule 3 C.P.C. for recording a compromise with the proposed plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 and himself along with the plaintiff, having entered into a compromise in respect of the said Ac.2.00 cents of land. In that compromise, the 8th respondent agreed to take Ac.1 .50 cents of land while the proposed plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 will be given Ac.0.50 cents. The lower Court recorded the compromise on 3-2-1992. This order is challenged in this revision.