BAKTHAVATSALAM Vs. ANJAPULI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order o the learned Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore, dated 1.2.2000, in an unnumbered application in O.S.No.160 of 1996.

(2.) THE petitioner herein initially filed a suit for partition at Sub-Court, Cuddalore on 17.2.1994. THEreafter, the same was transferred to District Munsif Court, Cuddalore and numbered as O.S.No.160 of 1996 and a preliminary decree was passed on 6.8.1998. It is is the case of the petitioner that in the meanwhile the respondents have sold certain suit properties to various third parties. He has also filed an application for passing a final decree. Accordingly, he has filed the present application under Order I, Rule 10 of C.P.C for impleading respondents 4 to 6 to bring as Defendants 4 to 6 in the suit. THE learned Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore, after holding that after passing of the preliminary decree on 6.8.1998 and at the stage of passing of final decree the petitioner has filed the present application for impleadment of certain parties who are said to have purchased certain items of suit properties, they are neither necessary nor proper parties, dismissed the said application, hence, the present revision.

(3.) SIMILAR question was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarvinder Singh v. Dalip Singh, 1996 (5) SCC 559. In that case, the appellant therein filed a suit before the Sub-Court, Ferozepur for declaration that he is the owner of the property on the basis of a registered Will, dated 26.5.1952, executed by his mother and that a declaration to that effect was already given by the civil court in another decree, dated 29.3.1974. In the application that, he filed under Order 39, Rule 1, CPC, an ad-interim injunction was granted on 14.6.1991, which subsequently came to be vacated on 2.12.1991. Thereafter, the defendants alienated the self same lands by registered sale deeds, dated 2.12.1991 and 12.12.1991 in favour of the respondents before the Supreme Court. On that basis, they sought to come on record as defendants under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC. The trial Court dismissed the application holding that they were neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. On revision, the High Court in the order impugned therein passed in C.R.No.323 of 1993, dated 13.5.1993, directed impleadment of the respondents as party defendants to the suit. Hence, the appeal before the Supreme Court by special leave. After considering the above factual position as well as Section 52 of the transfer of Property Act, Their Lordships have held