P.Seelayee vs K.Mariyayee

The above second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, dated 22.07.1996, passed in A.S No.2 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court of Dindigul, confirming the judgement and decree dated 14.09.1993, passed in O.S.No.1640 of 1987 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul.

Parties herein are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the original suit.

An extent of 6.02 acres of agricultural lands comprised in Sy.Nos.652/H , 1655/B and 1656/A of Cuddalore Village, Vedasanthur Taluk are the suit properties. The suit properties were originally purchased by one Karutha Kuravan and Per Nayakkar under a sale deed dated 01.07.1912 (Ex.B.1). The following is the family tree of Karutha Kuravan and Per Nayakkar.

TREE DIGRAM OMITTED

The plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition of their half share in the suit property. They claimed under Per Nayakkar, one of the original owners under Ex.B.1 sale deed.

The second defendant filed a written statement. According to him, the suit properties are the absolute properties of Karutha Kuravan. According to him, Per Nayakkar has no right in the property.

The respondents 1 to 4 filed a suit in O.S.No.1198 of 1987 on the file of the said court for declaration of their title to the suit property and for injunction.

Both the suits were tried together and disposed of by a common judgment.

The trial court found that the suit properties originally belonged to Per Nayakkar and Karutha Kuravan. It has held that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and dismissed the suit for partition. The suit filed by the respondents 1 to 4 was also dismissed.

Aggrieved by the said judgment, the plaintiffs preferred A.S.No.2 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul. The respondents 1 to 4 preferred A.S.No.42 of 1994 against the judgment

made in O.S.No.1198 of 1987. Both the appeals were disposed of by a common judgment. The appeals were dismissed. The appellate court has found that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

Aggrieved by the judgement and decree of the first appellate court, the appellants have preferred the second appeal. Points:

This appeal has been filed on the ground that the suit is not bad for non-joinder of the legal heirs of Karutha Kuravan inasmuch as all the sons of Kuppa Kuravan, s/o.Karutha Kuravan have alienated the interest in the suit properties to the first respondent and the eldest son of Palani Kuruvan, s/o.Karutha Kuravan had been impleaded as a party to the suit and that therefore, the courts below have erred in coming to the conclusion that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the suit for partition is liable to be dismissed, as all the sharers, namely the heirs of Per Nayakkar and Karutha Kuravan are not parties before the court.

Admittedly, the suit properties originally belonged to Karutha Kuruvan and Per Nayakkar. It is also not in dispute that the legal heirs of Per Nayakkar and Karutha Kuravan are necessary parties to the suit. The suit is one for partition. Therefore, all the sharers are necessary parties. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants would also fairly concede that in the absence of necessary parties, the issues raised in the suit cannot be decided and the suit for partition is not maintainable. Therefore, the finding of the courts below that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties is to be upheld. Accordingly, I hold that the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of legal heirs of Karutha Kuravan. Since the suit is not maintainable, there is no need to go into the merits of the other issues. Even now, no steps are taken by the plaintiffs/appellants to implead all the necessary parties, who have been omitted to be impleaded. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The judgments and decrees of the courts below are confirmed. No costs.