IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.11.2007
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN
Civil Revision Petition (NPD) Nos.98 & 99 of 2006
and
C.M.P. Nos.786 & 787 of 2006
A.S.Venkataramanujam Chettiar
residing at No.7
Nagathamman Koil Street
Mettupalayam
Chennai 33
Managing Trustee of Sri Prasanna Venkatesa Perumal Koil
Mettupalayam
Chennai 33 ..Petitioners in
both petitions
Vs.
1. The Executive Officer
Sri Arulmigu Venkatesa Perumal Temple
Mettupalayam
Chennai 33.
2. A.S.Manavala Chetty
(for himself and representing
the members of Balija Chetty Community
in and around Mettupalayam)
Saidapet
Chennai 33.
3. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by Commissioner & Secretary to Government
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department
Fort St.George
Chennai 9.
4. The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment (Administration) Department
having his Office at No.20
Nungambakkam High Road
Chennai 34.
5. The Deputy Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment (Administration) Department
having his office at No.20
Nungambakkam High Road
Chennai 34
6. T.V.Selvarajan (Given up)
7. The Mettupalayam Public Welfare & Development Association
Rep. by its Secretary Shanmuga Raj
Having office at Old No.100
Kodambakkam High Road
Mettupalayam
Chennai 600 033 ..Respondents in
CRP.98/2006
1. The Mettupalayam Public Welfare & Development Association
Rep. by its Secretary Shanmuga Raj
Having office at Old No.100
Kodambakkam High Road
Mettupalayam
Chennai 600 033.
2. A.S.Manavala Chetty
S/o Sriniviasalu Chettiar
(for himself and representing the members
of Balija Chetty Community in and around Mettupalayam)
Saidapet
Chennai 33.
3. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep.by Commissioner & Secretary to Government
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department
Fort St.George
Chennai 9.
4. The Commissioner Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowment (Administration) Department
having his Office at No.20
Nungambakkam High Road
Chennai 34.
5. The Deputy Commissioner
Hindu Religious & Charitable
Endowment (Administration) Dept.
having his office at No.20
Nungambakkam High Road
Chennai 34.
6. The Executive Officer
Sri Arulmigu Venkatesa Perumal Temple
Mettupalayam
Chennai 33
7. T.V.Selvarajan (Given up) ..Respondents in
CRP.99/2006
Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, against the order dated 5.12.2005 in
C.M.P.No.2257 of 2005 in A.S.No.237 of 2005 and
C.M.P.No.2256 of 2005 in A.S.No.268 of 2004 respectively on
the file of V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr. S.Senthilnathan,Advocate
For respondents : Mr.S D.Ramalingam-R1 & R6
Mr.B.Thirupathi Kumar-R2
Ms. R.Revathi, Govt.Advocate R3 to R5 (both cases)
Mr.B.T.Seshadri-R7 in CRP. No.98/2006
R6 Given up-CRP NO.98/2006
R7 Given up-CRP No.99/2006
C O M M O N O R D E R
The order passed in C.M.P.No.2257 of 2005 in
A.S.No.237 of 2005 on the file of V Additional Judge, City
Civil Court, Chennai is under challenge in C.R.P.No.98 of
2006 and the order passed in C.M.P.No.2256 of 2005 in
A.S.No.268 of 2004 on the file of V Additional Judge, City
Civil Court, Chennai is under challenge in CRP.No.99 of
2006.
2. The revision petitioner in both civil revision
petitions had filed C.M.P.No.2257 of 2005 and 2256 of 2005
in A.S.No.237 of 2004 and A.S.No.268 of 2004 respectively
under Section 151 of CPC to get himself impleaded in the
appeal as additional respondent claiming that he is the
elected Trustee of the Balija Chetty Community. The suit
in O.S.No.8692 of 1997 was filed by one A.S.Manavala
Chetty under Order I Rule 10 CPC in his representative
capacity of Balija Chetty Community. The said suit was
decreed.
3. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.8692
of 1997, the 7th defendant in the suit had preferred an
appeal in A.S.No.268 of 2004 and the 4th defendant ,the
Executing Officer had preferred an appeal in A.S.No.237 of
2005. The learned first appellate Judge had dismissed both
C.M.P.Nos.2257 of 2005 and 2256 of 2005 on the ground that
the petitioner is not a necessary party to the suit.
According to the plaintiff, the Managing Trustee of Sri
Arulmigu Venkatesa Perumal Temple is one B.K.Ramesh
Chettiar. According to the revision petitioner, he has
been elected as the Managing Trustee of the said temple. To
substantiate this contention, the revision petitioner has
not produced any document before the First Appellate Court
to show that he is the elected Managing Trustee of the said
Temple.
3. The learnel counsel appearing for second
respondent relying on a decision reported in S.Krishan-v-
Rathinavel Naicker and 22 others(2007(2)CTC 73) would
contend that additional party cannot be impleaded at the
appellate stage. The facts of the said case are that one
Krishnan has filed a suit in O.S.No.341 of 1998 before the
Principal District Munsif, Kancheepuram for permanent
injunction. The first respondent in the said suit had filed
three other suits ie., O.S.No.799 of 1998, O.S.No.819 of
1998 and O.S.No.573 of 1999 against the plaintiff Krishnan
in O.S.No.341 of 1998. Against the Judgment and Decree in
O.S.No.341 of 1998, an appeal has been preferred before the
Additional District Court(Fast Track Court No.II)
Kancheepuram in A.S.No. 17 of 2001 wherein respondents 5 to
23 in the first appeal have as proposed parties filed
I.A.No.426 of 2003 under Order 1 Rule 10(2)of CPC for the
relief of impleading them as additional respondents 5 to 23
in the first appeal. The order of dismissal passed in
I.A.No.426 of 2003 was challenged in the above said
revision before this Court. Relying on two decisions
(i)Aliji Momonji & Co., v. Lalji Mavji and others(1996
(5)SCC 379 and (ii) Dr.S.Kameswaran-v.A.Jayaraman and
another (1998(2) CTC 470). This Court has
held that an impleading petition at the appellate stage
cannot be entertained. The relevant observation deciding
this revision petition in Aliji Momonji & Co., v. Lalji
Mavji and others(1996 (5)SCC 379 runs as follows:
“The Supreme Court defined a necessary
party as one without whose presence no
effective and complete adjudication of
the dispute could be made and no relief
granted. Proper party is defined as one
whose presence is necessary for complete
and effectual adjudication of the
dispute, though no relief is sought
against him. In the case on hand, the
Trial Court has already decided the lis
between the parties and the correctness
of the same is under challenge in the
First Appeal. In other words, in so far
as the Trial Court is concerned, an
effective adjudication has already been
made by the Trial Court and a complete
and final decision has also been
rendered. Therefore, the respondents 5
to 23 do not pass either of the above
tests, to be treated as necessary or
proper parties.”
The exact observation in Dr.S.Kameswaran-v.A.Jayaraman and
another (1998(2) CTC 470) relevant for the purpose of
deciding this case runs as follows:
” A Division Bench of this Court held
that a party can be impleaded when
there is a cause of action against him.
But in this case, the actual parties to
the litigation, claim title to the
property as absolute owners and there
is no pleading to the effect that the
proposed respondents have either
denied the title of any one of them or
interfered with the possession and
enjoyment of any one of them. Thus no
cause of action is either pleaded or
sought to be established against the
proposed parties and hence they are
actually unnecessary for the
adjudication of the lis between the
parties, especially at the stage of
the appeal”.
In the absence of any evidence to show that the present
revision petitioner is the elected Managing Trustee of the
Sri Arulmigu Venkatesa Perumal Temple, I am of the view
that the findings of the learned first appellate Judge in
C.M.P.Nos.2257 of 2005 and 2256 of 2005 in A.S.No.237 of
2005 and A.S.No.268 of 2005 respectively need not be
interfered with.
4. In fine both civil revision petitions are dismissed
confirming the order passed in C.M.P.Nos.2257 of 2005 and
2256 of 2005 in A.S.No.237 of 2005 and A.S.No.268 of 2005
respectively on the file of V Additional Judge, City Civil
Court, Chennai. No costs. Consequently, connected
C.M.P.Nos.786 and 787 of 2006 are also dismissed. It is
represented that the plaintiff in O.S.No.8692 of 1997 is a
Senior Citizen. Under such circumstances, the learned
first appellate Judge is directed to dispose of appeals in
A.S.No.237 of 2005 and 268 of 2005 within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
sg
To
The V Additional Judge
City Civil Court
Chennai.