This revision petition is directed against the dismissal of impleading application filed by third party in the final decree proceedings initiated in O.S.No.116 of 1999.
2.The short point involved in this case is that initially the suit was filed for partition in respect of suit property bearing new Survey No.76/4D and old Survey No.76/4 and other properties. The revision petitioner herein has purchased a portion of property from one Ragavendra Rao and defendants 1 & 2 in the suit, bearing new Survey Nos.76/4C and 76/4B. But after passing the final decree, the decree holder/respondent has filed an application to amend the schedule in the decree and the same was allowed by the Trial Court in I.A.No.19 of 2007. By the said amendment, in first item property, the Survey Number which was earlier described as old Survey No.76/4, new Survey No.76/4D has been amended as Nathan Survey Register R.S.Nos.76/4B and 76/4C with specific boundaries.
3.The contention of the revision petitioner is that by way of an amendment to the preliminary decree, the property which was purchased by the revision petitioner is now been shown as the subject matter of the suit and sought to be taken delivery, pursuant to the final decree proceedings.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that since he has interest and right over the property bearing Survey Nos.76/4C and 76/4B, the petitioner is a proper and necessary party to be heard.
5.The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the revision petitioner is no way affected or concerned with the final decree proceedings, since his vendor Ragavendra Rao's property has already been excluded and the property of Ragavendra Rao is shown as western boundary of the suit schedule property.
6.Whether, the property of Ragavendra Rao is excluded as per the final decree can be ascertained only when the suit property is inspected by a qualified Surveyor. Prima facie the revision petitioner has made out a case that the property as described in the amended preliminary decree includes the property falling under Survey Nos. 76/4B and 76/4C, which he has purchased from Ragavendra Rao and defendants 1 and 2 as per sale deed dated 27.06.2005. Therefore, the order of the Court below dismissing the implead petition on the ground that no right of revision petitioner is infringed, since his vendor's share is excluded, is a pre-concluded reasoning. Unless the revision petitioner impleaded as party to the proceedings and allowed to participate in the identification and division of the property, it is pre- mature to conclude his right is not infringed, more particularly when the properties which he has purchased are shown as suit schedule property in the amended final decree.
7.Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the Order dated 11.07.2011 made in I.A.No.6 of 2010 in I.A.No.19 of 2007 in O.S.No.116 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tanjore. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. No Costs.
To The Additional Subordinate Court, Tanjore.
.