This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 01.02.2012, passed in I.A.No.1051 of 2011 in O.S.No.274 of 2010, by the learned District Munsif, Kovilpatti.
2. The petitioner is the third party/proposed third defendant and the first respondent is the plaintiff and respondents 2 and 3 are the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.274 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti. The first respondent filed the suit against the respondents 2 and 3 for recovery of possession of the suit property on the ground that they were not paid rent. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1051 of 2011 for impleading her as third defendant in the suit. According to the petitioner, her father viz., Late.Ramasamy Naicker, who is also the father of the second respondent, is the original owner of the suit property. After his death, the petitioner and the second respondent are enjoying the suit property jointly. The second respondent did not agree for partition. Therefore, she filed O.S.No.54 of 2011 before the Subordinate Court, Kovilpatti and the same is pending. The respondents colluded together and created documents and filed the present suit. Therefore, she is necessary and proper party to the suit and hence, she has filed the present application.
3. The first respondent filed counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner has already filed O.S.No.54 of 2011 for partition and the present suit is for evicting the respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner is not necessary party in view of the relief sought for by the first respondent.
4. The learned District Munsif, Kovilpatti, considering the averments made in the affidavit, counter affidavit and also the materials available on record, especially, the averments made in the plaint and the relief sought for in O.S.No.54 of 0211, dismissed the application.
5. Against the said order of dismissal, dated 01.12.2012, the petitioner has come out with the present Civil Revision Petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds raised in the Civil Revision Petition and submitted that the petitioner is one of the sharers of the suit property and therefore, she is necessary and property party to the suit proceedings.
7. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the respondents 2 and 3 sold the property to the first respondent and the respondents 2 and 3 became tenants under first respondent. They filed O.S.No.59 of 2007 for declaration to declare that the sale deed is only a security for the loan taken by them. The said suit was dismissed and first appeal in A.S.No.39 of 2009 and the second appeal were also dismissed. The present suit is for recovery of possession from the respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner filed the suit in O.S.No.54 of 2011 for partition and the same is pending. If she succeeds in the suit, she will get her joint family property. In the circumstances, the petitioner is not necessary and proper party to the suit proceedings.
8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
9. From the materials available on record, it is seen that the petitioner is claiming that she is a joint owner of the property originally purchased by her father viz., Late. Ramasamy Naicker, who is also the father of the second respondent and both of them are enjoying the property jointly. She has filed the suit for partition. The present suit is for evicting the respondents 2 and 3 and for recovery of possession. The title of the property is not an issue in the present suit. The learned District Munsif, upon considering the fact that already the petitioner filed the suit for partition, dismissed the application by giving cogent and valid reason. There is no irregularity or illegality in the said order warranting interference by this Court.
10. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To The District Munsif, Kovilpatti..