AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Manikumar, J.—Being aggrieved by the order and decretal order in I.A. No. 20389 of 2011 in O.S. No. 13676 of 2010, dated
20.02.2012, dismissing the petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC, to implead the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, as third defendant,
the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. Material on record discloses that the suit in O.S. No. 13676 of 2010 has been filed by the first
respondent, for a relief of declaration, injunction and damages, against the petitioner, who is the first defendant in the suit. As per the petition
averments, the suit property belongs to Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board and it was allotted to Anna Mary. She expired, without any legal heir.
The petitioner and the respondents were in possession of the suit land, measuring 400 Sq.Ft. Since the original allottee expired, it is for the
Tamilnadu Slum clearance Board to decide the allotment of the site. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed I.A., to implead Tamil Nadu
Slum Clearance Board, as party to the suit, for proper adjudication. He has also prayed that the additional issue be framed, as to whether the suit
is bad in law, for non-Joinder of Tamil Nadu Slum clearance Board, as defendant in the suit.
The respondent has filed a counter affidavit, contending inter alia that what was allotted by the Tamil Nadu Slum clearance Board, was only a
leasehold right of the land to one Thiru. Alpanso and after his demise, the said right has been allotted to Anna Mary. She was put up a
superstructure, vis., a thatched shed. During her lifetime, Anna Mary has executed a registered sale deed to the plaintiff/respondent. According to
him, the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board is nothing to do with the superstructure. The revision petitioners was only a tenant, in respect of 40
Sq.ft.
The respondent has further submitted that the Slum Clearance Board is not a necessary and proper party for adjudicating the dispute, between
the revision petition and the first respondent, pertaining to the superstructure. He has also submitted that the plaintiff/respondent has sought for a
declaration, only in respect of superstructure and not for ground site, on which, superstructure has been put up. For the abovesaid reasons, the
respondent has prayed for dismissal of the petitioner.
Upon perusal of pleadings and submissions, vide order, dated 20.02.2012, the Court below has dismissed I.A. No. 20389 of 2011.
Assailing the correctness of the said order, Mr. Mohana Sundararajan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that when the suit
site belongs to Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, to resolve the dispute between the parties in connection with the property, the Board is a
necessary and proper party. He further submitted that the Court below has erred in finding that the plaintiff/respondent, has sought for a declaration
only in respect of the superstructure and when the original allottee expired, without any legal heirs, the Board has every right to allot the suit site to
any party and in such circumstances, the Board is a necessary and proper party for effective adjudication of the lis between the petitioner and the
first respondent.
Per contra, inviting the attention of this Court to the relief sought for, in O.S. No. 1367 of 2010 and also the valuation column and the Court fee
paid in the suit, '' Mr. P. Prem Kumar, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that when the plaintiff himself has sought for a declaration
only in respect of a superstructure and for a consequential injunction and damages, there is absolutely no need for impleadment of Tamil Nadu
Slum Clearance Board, as a defendant in the suit. He further submitted that there is absolutely no dispute as regards ownership of the land, upon
which, the superstructure is put up and when the plaintiff has not sought for any declaration of title to the land and paid any court fee, participation
of the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board in the lis, is absolutely unnecessary. For the abovesaid reasons, he prayed to sustain the impugned order.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
Before adverting to the rival contentions, this Court deems it fit to extract the reliefs sought for, in the suit.
(1) Declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of 400 Sq.Ft. portion in the Southern half of the property bearing Door No. 48, II Trust Main
Road, Mandavelipakkam, Chennai 600 028, comprised in R.S. No. 4436/60 Part, Block No. 98 of Mylapore Village.
(2) Consequently directing the first defendant to quit and deliver the vacant possession of 360 Sq.Ft., out of 400 Sq.Ft., in the property bearing
Door No. II, Trust Main Road, Mandavelipakkam, Chennai 600 028, more fully described in the schedule hereunder and shown in Black Colour
in the Sketch filed along with the plaint.
(3) Consequently pass a decree for permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from interfering with the plaintiff''s peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the property, being 360 Sq.Ft., out of 400 Sq.Ft., in the property bearing Door No. II, Trust Main Road, Mandavelipakkam,
Chennai-28, comprised in R.S. No. 4436/60 Part, Block No. 98 of Mylapore Village and morefully described in the schedule hereunder and
shown in Black Colour in the Sketch filed along with the plaint.
Some of the decisions, on the aspect, as to how an application to implead a party has to be tested, are extracted hereunder:
(i) A party seeking to be impleaded as a party to a suit must demonstrate that it has a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the suit
and that such interest would be affected directed by the decree that may be passed in the suit or that its presence as a party to the suit must be
necessary for answering the issues arising in the suit. These factors must be demonstrably exist before the party applying can be allowed to be
impleaded as a party to the suit. P.M.A. Hakeem, Chairman, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. U.P. Co-operative
Spinning Mills Federation Limited and Others, Co-operative Textiles Mills Ltd. Staff Association (Intervener),
(ii) A necessary party is one without whom no order can be effectively made. A proper is one whose presence is necessary for a complete and
final decision of question involved in the proceedings Sarvinder Singh Vs. Dalip Singh and Others,
(iii) Where the impleadment of a person would change the complex of the litigation his/her presence is neither necessary for the decision of the
question involved in the proceedings nor to enable the Court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle the question involved in the
case such a person is neither a necessary nor a proper party J.J. Lal Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. M.R. Murali and Another,
(iv) The necessary consideration before the Court while determining the question of impleadment of a party to the proceedings is whether the said
party is necessary or proper party and presence of such party before the Court is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the subject-
matter. Jaspal Kaur Vs. Hazara Singh and Another, Smt. T. Bhagyalakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka and Another, Sundergarh Shramik Sangh v.
The Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd., AIR 2005 NOC 441 (Orissa)]
(v) The basic principle to be kept in view is that the plaintiff who is the dominus litis of the proceedings cannot be compelled to contest against a
party against whom he does not wish to contest. Ramesh Kumar Vs. Naresh Kumar
(vi) When a person is neither a necessary party nor a proper party and his presence is not required for any complete and effective adjudication of
the question involved in the suit, he cannot be impleaded merely because the plaintiff wished so. [Mahipal Bahadur v. Prayag Lal Rama, (1996) 3
CLT 212]
(vii) In the case of claim for easement over a space which belongs to the Municipality and injunction regarding the construction proposed in the
open space is asked for, if it is not suggested that the Municipality was a party to the act of obstruction, the non-joinder of the Municipality is not
fatal to the suit S. Narayana Rao Vs. R. Narasinga Rao (deceased by LRs),
Prayers 4 to 8 are with reference to the damages, wrongful use, etc. Memo of valuation and the Court fee paid for the reliefs 1 and 2, as per the
plaint, makes it abundantly clear that the plaintiff/respondent has sought for a declaration only in respect of superstructure and not valued the suit
for the land, which belongs to Tamilnadu Slum clearance Board.
Column No. 1 of the Memo of Valuation is extracted hereunder:
When the plaintiff/respondent himself has sought for a declaration only in respect of the superstructure and paid appropriate Court fee, as
rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, there is absolutely no need for the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, to be
impleaded as a party respondent. No relief is claimed against the Board. From the pleadings made in the suit, it could be deduced that the dispute
is only with reference to the superstructure and therefore, as rightly observed by the Court below, to decide the above dispute, presence of the
Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, is absolutely not necessary. Even without the participation of the Board, on the suit, the Court below can
always decide the dispute, with regard to the superstructure and decide the issues in the suit. The suit cannot be declared as bad in law, for non-
joinder of the Board. There is no merit in the Civil Revision Petition and the same is dismissed. As pleadings are completed, the XIII Assistant City
Civil Court, Chennai, is directed to dispose of the suit, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.