High CourtsSingle Bench(1962) 11 MAD CK 0016

Pappa Ammal vs Pandiyan Bank Ltd. and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 2 November 1962 · Citation: AIR 1963 Mad 480

HON’BLE JUDGES
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.R.P. No. 928 of 1962

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 379 words

S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.—The learned Subordinate Judge has allowed the widow of the deceased Manicka Chetty to be impleaded as a

party to O.S. No. 79 of 1961 and this civil revision petition is directed against the order. Unfortunately, in making the order, the learned

Subordinate Judge did not decide the question whether the widow of the deceased Manicka Chetty was either a necessary party or even a proper

party. But he contented himself with saying that, if it were to be found in the suit that she was not a necessary party, the suit would have to be

dismissed against her. This is a very unsatisfactory way of disposing of the matter. Before a Court impleads a particular person as a party to a suit,

it is its duty to find even at that stage whether that party is a necessary party or a proper party. It will be only abdicating its duty if it were to

reserve that question to a later stage, impleading the person as a party and exposing him to all the travails of a litigation. It is poor satisfaction to a

person, who is neither a necessary nor a proper party, to be told that she will first be impleaded, and later on, after she was gone through the

ordeal or a suit, the suit will be dismissed against her, in case it was found that she was not a party.

I have therefore considered it necessary to consider the pleadings in the case to find out whether Pappammal, the petitioner, can he said to be a

necessary party. The suit was laid on the basis of a mortgage by deposit of title deeds created by Manicka Chetti. The property belonged to him

personally; but the debt, which, according to the plaintiff, was secured by the mortgage, was a liability of the partnership. The suit being thus one

on the mortgage all the representatives of the mortgagor should be regarded as necessary parties. Pappammal was undoubtedly a representative of

the mortgagor. She will therefore be a necessary party. The order of the lower Court has to be sustained, though not for the reason stated by it.

2.

The civil revision petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.