IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.08.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN Civil Revision Petition (NPD) Nos.1027 to 1029 of 2008 and M.P.Nos.1,1,1 of 2008 S.Selvaraj .. Petitioner in all the revision petitions Vs. 1. Nagammal 2. M.Nagarajan .. Respondents in all the revision petitions
CRP (NPD) No.1027 of 2008 : Civil Revision Petition filed against the Fair and Decreetal Order, dated 20.12.2007 passed in E.A.No.296 of 2007 in E.P.No.46 of 2006 in R.C.O.P. No.36 of 1995 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.
CRP (NPD) No.1028 of 2008 : Civil Revision Petition filed against the Fair and Decreetal Order, dated 20.12.2007 passed in E.A.No.294 of 2007 in E.A.No.347 of 2006 in E.P.No.46 of 2006 in R.C.O.P. No.36 of 1995 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.
CRP (NPD) No.1029 of 2008 : Civil Revision Petition filed against the Fair and Decreetal Order, dated 20.12.2007 passed in E.A.No.295 of 2007 in E.A.No.348 of 2006 in E.P.No.46 of 2006 in R.C.O.P. No.36 of 1995 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.
For petitioner : Mr.L.Mouli For respondents : Mr.C.R.Prasanan COMMON ORDER
All these Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred by the revision petitioner / tenant. C.R.P (NPD) No.1027 of 2008 has been preferred against the order, dated 20.12.2007 made in E.A.No.296 of 2007 in E.P.No.46 of 2006 in R.C.O.P.No.36 of 1995 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore to implead the second respondent as a necessary party in the E.P. CRP (NPD) No.1028 of 2008 has been preferred against the order, dated 20.12.2007 made in E.A.No.294 of 2007 in E.A.No.347 of 2006 in the aforesaid RCOP on the file of the said Court to implead the second respondent in E.A.No.347 of 2006. CRP (NPD) No.1029 of 2008 has been preferred against the order, dated 20.12.2007 made in E.A.No.295 of 2007 in E.A.No.348 of 2006 in the aforesaid RCOP on the file of the said Court to implead the second respondent in E.A.No.348 of 2006, which was filed for break open the lock for effecting delivery of possession.
2. It is not in dispute that the court below has allowed all the Execution Applications to implead the second respondent herein as proposed respondent, based on the settlement deed executed by the first respondent / decree holder in favour of her son, the second respondent herein.
3. Mr.L.Mouli, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner / tenant contended that the application itself is not maintainable, since the petitioner has filed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead the second respondent herein, as second petitioner in E.A.No.347 of 2006. According to the learned counsel, the said provision is applicable only for seeking any amendment in the suit and not applicable to the Execution Proceedings.
4. Per contra, Mr.C.R.Prasanan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that admittedly the revision petitioner suffered a decree. The first respondent herein, being the decree holder preferred Execution Petition, since she has executed settlement deed in favour of her son, the second respondent herein in respect of the property relating to the Execution Application filed in E.A.No.294 of 2007 to implead her son as second respondent in the Execution Petition, which is legally maintainable and that there is no error or illegality in the impugned order. In support of his contention, the learned counsel cited the following decisions :
1. Subbanna vs. Seshagiri Rao, 1979 MLJ 385
2. Gnanasundaram vs. Murugesa Naicker, AIR 1989 Madras 343
3. Srinivasan, K. vs. Nandagopal, 2001 (3) CTC 546
5. In the decision, Subbanna vs. Seshagiri Rao, reported in 1979 MLJ 385, this Court has held that the subsequent purchaser of a property in the course of proceedings can be brought on record for the purpose of continuing the RCOP proceedings filed by the previous landlord. Application filed by the subsequent purchaser to bring himself on record in those proceedings, would not be a material interdict and as such, there is no statutory bar, preventing the subsequent purchaser from being brought on record for continuing the proceedings either at the original stage or at the execution stage. He cannot claim any right more that he is possessed.
6. In the decision, Gnanasundaram vs. Murugesa Naicker, reported in AIR 1989 Madras 343, this Court has held that as per Sections 47, 146 and Order 21 Rule 16 CPC, in a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession, wherein the property was sold by the plaintiff during pendency of the suit, though the compromise decree had been passed, declaring the plaintiff’s title in respect of the suit property and in such circumstances, it was held that transferee is entitled to file execution application.
7. Similarly, this Court in the decision, Srinivasan, K. vs. Nandagopal, reported in 2001 (3) CTC 546, wherein the landlord seeking eviction on the ground of owner’s occupation, subsequently, sold the property and applications filed for impleading subsequent purchaser and for amendment in the petition, the tenant has denied the subsequent landlord’s title and it was held that tenant was liable to be evicted on the ground. This Court has also held that the subsequent purchasers would pursue eviction on the ground of denial of title of predecessor in title.
8. From the decisions cited above, it is clear that the subsequent transferee can step into the shoes of the landlord / landlady and proceed against the tenant, either in the same proceedings or in the Execution Proceedings. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the revision petitioner / tenant had suffered a decree and order of eviction was passed in R.C.O.P.No.36 of 1995 on 15.04.19997 and delivery was ordered on 14.10.2006 in E.P.No.46 of 23006 by the court below. The landlady / decree holder, pending EP has execute the settlement deed in favour of her son, the second respondent herein and also filed a petition to implead the second respondent as the second petitioner in the EP proceedings. Being the landlord and owner of the property, she is entitled to settle the property in favour of her son, the proposed respondent, which cannot be prevented by Judgment Debtor and nothing prevents the decree holder in filing a petition, seeking to implead her son, the second respondent herein, in view of the settlement deed executed by her.
9. Merely, by quoting a wrong provision of law, Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, it will not preclude the right of the respondents herein and therefore, I am of the view that there is no error in the impugned order passed by the court below, so as to warrant any interference by this Court.
S.TAMILVANAN, J
tsvn
10. In the result, all the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No order as to costs.
11.08.2008
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
tsvn
To
The First Additional District Munsif
Coimbatore.
C.R.P. (NPD) Nos.1027
to 1029 of 2008