CRP(MD)/2738/2026 of Kannan Vs M.Subramani on 13 October 2026

Order

This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 02.04.2026 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.45 of 2023 on the file of the Learned Additional District Court (FTC), Theni

2. The petitioner is the proposed defendant. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff. The respondents 2 to 5 are defendants. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for the relief of specific performance based on the sale agreement dated 14.02.2022.

3. According to the 1st respondent/plaintiff the suit schedule property originally belonged to one Banu, who is the wife of the 2nd respondent and mother of the respondents 3 to 5. The said Banu purchased the property for valid consideration from Madasamy Pillai, by way of registered sale deed on 31.05.2000 vide document No.1-1761-155 to 158-1595/2000 at the Sub Registrar Office, Bodinayakanur. Subsequently, Banu died on 02.10.2012 and the property devolved upon her legal heirs, respondents 2 to 5 and patta also transferred in their names. The legal heirs of Banu, respondents 2 to 5 are agreed to sell the property to the 1st respondent/plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- vide sale agreement dated 14.02.2022 registered as

Document No.1543/2022 at Sub Registrar Office, Bodinayakanur. The 1st respondent alleged that he had already paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.10,00,000/- has to be paid. The 1st respondent submits that he is always ready and willing to pay the same. However, the respondents 2 to 5 are not ready to receive the balance amount and complete the transaction within a period of one year and therefore, the 1st respondent / plaintiff had gone to the Registrar Office to pay the balance sale consideration in the presence of same witness. Even though the plaintiff was ready and willing to complete the sale, the respondents 2 to 5 with fraudulent intention, failed to execute the sale deed and during the pendency of the suit, sold the property to the petitioner /proposed party. Therefore, the 1st respondent /plaintiff has filed an IA.No.2 of 2025 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead the petitioner/proposed party as a necessary party to the suit.

4. According to the petitioner/ proposed party, the trial Court allowed the petition without considering the fact that the proposed party has not purchased the property which was agreed to be sold by the respondents 2 to 5. The petitioner claimed that he had purchased a property on 12.01.2024 vide registered document No.246 of 2024 in respect of survey No.1/21, in schedule I to an extent of 315 sq. ft. of building and in schedule II to an extent 175 ½ sq. ft. building. The revision petitioner submits that the plaintiff’s claim is in respect of the property which was purchased by Banu dated 31.05.2000 to an extent of 536 sq ft. and the sale agreement dated 11.03.2022 is also only in respect of 536 sq. ft., which is entirely different from the property purchased by the revision petitioner and it is no way connected with the sale agreement and hence, there is no necessity to implead the petitioner in the suit and prayed to allow the civil revision petition.

5. The trial Court considering the fact that the petitioner/proposed party is a necessary party to the suit, his impleadment would enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, has allowed the petition. Against which the present civil revision petition is filed on the ground that the petition filed by the plaintiff as against the revision petitioner is not at all maintainable. The petitioner purchased the property with valuable consideration from the respondents 2 to 5 /defendants 1 to 4. The trial Court failed to note that the 1st respondent’s claim is in respect of 536 sq. ft. whereas the petitioner purchased 2 schedules of properties, 1st schedule - 315 sq. ft and 2nd schedule - 175 ½ sq. ft. totally an extent of 490 ½ sq. ft. of the building was purchased out of 647 sq. ft. The trial

Court failed to note that the sale agreement holder, the 1st respondent/plaintiff fraudulently disturbed the petitioner’s possession by filing the malafide and vexatious impleading petition and that there is no necessity to implead the petitioner as a party to the suit and the order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

7. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance claiming the suit schedule property as follows : “An extent of 530 sq. ft and land situated in Survey No.1/31 bearing Door No.65A, Old Tax Assessment No.120/11930 and New Tax Assessment No.120/022/00299 consisting of ground floor, first floor and 2nd floor with electricity service connection No.05-511-004-1080, No.05- 511-004-1098, No.05-511-010-639. The sale agreement entered into between the parties on 14.02.2022.”

8. It is the contention of the 1st respondent/plaintiff that the petitioner purchased property during the pendency of the suit on 15.12.2023. However, the petitioner stated that the property purchased by him is not that of the suit property, but he has purchased the suit property in two part. The assessment numbers are different.

9. However, on perusal of the record, it is seen that he purchased the same property bearing Survey No.1/31 and it is also bearing same Door No.65 and the electricity connection is also similar, the old assessment number is also the same. Only in the new assessment number, there is a little bit variation. However, the property mentioned in the suit schedule property and the property purchased under the sale deed seems to be similar property. But only a lessor extent is purchased by the petitioner and that can be decided only at the time of trial. No prejudice would be caused, if the petitioner is added as a new party. The petitioner has every right to establish his right as to whether the property is the subject matter of the property or not and the same would be decided at the time of trial and it is true that the trial Court has not elaborately discussed, however, unless the present revision petitioner is not added as a party, the Court could not decide the matter which is involved in the suit. Since, the 1st respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance, he needs to prove that he has entered into the sale agreement and subsequently, whether the suit property has been fraudulently sold or not has to be decided. Therefore, there is no perversity in the order passed by the trial Court. The civil revision petition lacks merits and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, this Civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RM Copy to The Additional District Court (FTC), Theni.

R.POORNIMA J. RM CRP(MD) No. 2738 of 2026 AND CMP(MD) NO. 14125 OF 2026 13-10-2026