T.Venkat Ramdev vs N.Hanumanth Rao

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the orders of the trial court in I.A.No.438 of 2015 in OS No.1028 of 2008 dated 27.06.2019.

The respondent herein filed an application before the trial court, seeking permission to bring the legal representatives of the defendant on record i.e. the petitioner herein. The trial court considering the arguments of the both sides allowed the petition.

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal and mainly contended that plaintiff filed suit for perpetual injunction against the father, as his father died, the cause of action also dies and thus the question of bringing him on record as legal representative does not arise. He further stated that as per the settled law, injunction does not run with the land and it is a personal right. As such, the question of impleading the defendant as legal representative of sole defendant in OS 1028 of 2008 does not arise. He further stated that an inordinate delay of 699 days in bringing the legal representative is false and baseless. Petitioner herein filed OS No.6 of 2012 and OS.No.9 of 2012 against the first respondent for perpetual injunction relating to his land in Survey Nos.171 and 179 of Boduppal Village which are pending on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. He also stated that he relied upon the citation of Madras High Court and also judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but the trial court failed to consider the same.

The counsel for the respondent stated in the suit already the issues are re-casted and it is coming for cross examination of defendant. As such, the CRP is infructuous and is to be dismissed. Plaintiff in the suit filed suit for injunction against sole defendant M.Yogayya Naidu, who is the father of this petitioner herein, but he died during the pendency of the proceedings i.e. on 25.01.2012. The counsel for the defendant failed to furnish the particulars of the legal representatives of the defendant. Later, on enquiry he came to know that Venkat Ramdev is son of the defendant. As such, he filed an application to bring him as a legal representative.

The counsel for the petitioner stated that the prayer in the injunction suit is to restrain the defendant, his heirs, successors and agents from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. He stated that injunction was sought for only against the defendant. In written statement filed by the defendant in suit, he clearly stated that he resides in Banjara Hills and never visited the suit schedule property. His son is the absolute owner of the property and the said property is guarded by his son’s watchman from last 40 years. As such the defendant is nothing to do with the suit schedule property nor with the plaintiff and when the objection was taken by the defendant in the written statement itself on 8.09.2008, it is for the plaintiff herein, to add the son of the defendant as a party to the proceedings, as it is the contention of the defendant that his son is the absolute owner of the property, but he failed to do so. Only after the death of the defendant, he filed an application to add the son of the defendant as a legal representative of defendant. The petitioner herein contended as the suit is filed by his father for injunction, it is a personal right and it does not run with the land.

In a citation reported in AIR 1990 Madras High Court between Chinnammal Vs. Naga Rathinammal reported AIR 1990 Madras 249, it was held as follows:

In the above case, the decree was already passed on regarding permanent injunction, when decree holder intend to execute an injunction against the purchaser of the land, it was held that it is not maintainable and he has to file a fresh suit. As such, the said citation is not applicable.

In the case of Puran Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in 1996(2) SCC 205, it was held as A personal action dies with the death of a person in certain cases like damages for defamation, assault or other personal injuries not causing the death of the party, but in some other cases right to sue survives inspite of death of the person against whom the proceeding had been initiated and such right continues to exist against the legal representative of the deceased.

Now, it is for the court to see whether right to sue survives or not. Admittedly, plaintiff in the suit filed for injunction against the sole defendant, but he clearly stated that the property pertains to his son and now, after his death, a petition is filed to bring him as an legal representative, as he is absolute owner of the property the right to sue against him survives and it does not die with the death of the sole defendant, who is no way concerned with the property. Therefore, the trial court rightly allowed the petition to bring the legal heir of the defendant as a legal representative and it needs no interference.

In CRP No.2043 of 2019 the petition is filed by the petitioner against the orders of the court in setting aside the abatement order in IA No.609 of 2015 in OS No.1028 of 2008. The said application is filed under Order I Rule 9 of CPC, to set aside the abatement order for the reasons stated in the previous orders.

The petitioner stated that the counsel for the defendant did not furnish the details of his legal representative. As such, there was delay in filing the legal representative application and thus he filed set aside abatement petition along with an application to bring the legal representatives on record. As the said application is allowed, this petition was also allowed by the trial court and thus, it needs no interference.

In CRP No.2045 of 2019 the petition is filed against the orders of the trial court in I.A.No.439 of 2015 in OS.No.1028 of 2008. The said application is filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay of 699 days in filing the legal representative application. The trial court observed as he could not collect the details of legal representatives of defendant in time, there was delay in filing application and to condone the delay.

Infact, the petitioner in the application stated that the counsel for the defendant has not furnished the details of legal representatives, as such there was delay in ascertaining the same. The counsel for the defendant filed a memo on 27.01.2012 stating the defendant died on 25.01.2012, but could not furnish the details of the legal representatives. As such, the petitioner made the enquiries and came to know about the details of his son and filed an application to condone the delay. Considering the reasons stated by the petitioner, the trial court rightly allowed the petition and it needs no interference.

Accordingly Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. However, no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stands dismissed.