This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 04.11.2011, passed in I.A.No.249 of 2011 in O.S.No.152 of 2008, by the learned District Munsif, Aruppukottai.
2.The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents 3 to 8 are the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.152 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai. The petitioners filed the suit against the respondents 3 to 8 for partition and separate possession. In the said suit, the respondents 1 and 2, who are third parties, filed I.A.No.249 of 2011 for impleading them as defendants 7 and 8. According to the respondents 1 and 2, the first respondent purchased the suit property from one Solaiappan by registered sale deed dated 17.05.2010 and 22.06.2010 and he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and on the same dates, the second respondent purchased the property from the first respondent by registered sale deed. The respondents 1 and 2 have stated that they have filed the sale deeds in O.S.No.186 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai. Therefore, they are necessary parties to the suit.
3.The petitioners filed counter affidavit and opposed the said application and submitted that the petitioners filed the suit against the respondents 3 to 8. The respondents 3 and 4 are brothers. The fifth respondent is their sister. The respondents 6 to 8 claimed to have purchased the property from the fifth respondent. Therefore, the petitioners impleaded the respondents 6 to 8 as parties in the suit. The first respondent claimed to have purchased the property from one Solaiappan on 17.05.2010 and 22.06.2010 and on the same dates, the second respondent purchased the said property from the first respondent and they have not stated how the said Solaiappan is the owner of the property. The said sale is subsequent to the filing of the suit and therefore, the said sale is hit by doctrine of lis pendens as per
Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.
4.The learned District Munsif, Aruppukottai, after considering the averments made in the affidavit, counter affidavit and also considering the materials available on record, allowed the application on the ground of substantial justice and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
5.Against the said order dated 04.11.2011, the petitioners have come out with the present Civil Revision Petition.
6.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
7.From the order of the learned District Munsif, Aruppukkottai, it is seen that the learned District Munsif has not considered the contention of the petitioners as stated in the counter. The learned District Munsif has not given any reason for not accepting the counter filed by the petitioners and that even if the purchase by the first respondent is true, the same is hit by the principles of lis pendens. By not considering the contention of the petitioners, the learned District Munsif failed to exercise the power conferred on her properly and has committed irregularity. In the circumstances, the fair and decreetal order dated 04.11.2011, passed in I.A.No.249 of 2011 in O.S.No.152 of 2008, by the learned District Munsif, Aruppukottai, is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To The District Munsif, Aruppukottai. .