C.R.P.(PD).No.3063 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.06.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN C.R.P.(PD).No.3063 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.15554 of 2016 Pakkirisamy ... Petitioner ..Vs.. 1.Rajamanickam (Died) Rep by his Power Agent U.Ponnalagan 2.Jothi 3.Moorthy 4.R.Alagumathiu 5.R.Suthan 6.Ambika (RR4 to 6 brought on record as LRs of the deceased R1 vide Court order dated18.07.2024 made in CMP No.5419/2024) ... Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 15.06.2016 passed in I.A.No.773 of 2012 in O.S.No.160 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sirkazhi. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sadasharam 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.3063 of 2016 For Respondents : R1- Died R2-No appearance Mr.B.Jawahar For R3 M/s.A.Sona Gandhi For RR4 to 6 ORDER I heard Mr.S.Sadasharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.B.Jawahar, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. 2. This Civil Revision Petition arises against the order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif at Sirkazhi in I.A.No.773 of 2012 in O.S.No.160 of 2009 dated 15.06.2016. 3. O.S.No.160 of 2009 is a suit filed for the following reliefs: “m) jhth tHf;F brhj;Jf;fis Kjy; vjph;thjp 2?k; vjph;thjpf;F fpuak; bra;j 28?04?2009 kw;Wkk; 20?03?2009 e; njjpa fpua rhrd';fs; ,uz;Lk; rl;lg;go bry;yhJ/ thjpia fl;Lg;gLj;jhJ vd;W tpsk;gy; ghpfhuKk; mij xl;o tHf;F brhj;Jf;fs; thjpf;F vjph;thjpfsplkpUe;J trk; fpilf;ft[k; cj;jutpl;Lk;. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.3063 of 2016 M) ,e;j tHf;fpd; bryt[ bjhif thjpf;F gpujpthjpfsplkpUe;J fpilf;Fk; go cj;jutpl;Lk;. ,),d;Dk; ,e;j tHf;fpd; jd;ikf;F jFe;J rK:fk; nfhh;l;lhh; mth;fSf;F a[f;jkha; njhd;Wk; ,ju ghpfhu';fisa[k; thjpf;F mspj;J cj;jputpl ntz;Lkha; thjp gpuhh;j;jpf;fpwhh; “ 4. The case of the plaintiff is that he had executed a power of attorney in favour of the first defendant, who had misused the same and executed a sale deed in favour of the second defendant. In this suit, the civil revision petitioner, who is a third party filed an impleading application. According to him, he is the owner of the second item of the suit schedule property. The learned Trial Judge after receiving a counter from the second defendant, dismissed the application. Hence the revision. 5. Whether the civil revision petitioner is the owner of the property or not, cannot be gone into in a suit initiated by the plaintiff as against his power agent and the purchaser from the power agent. In case, the civil revision petitioner is impleaded as a party, it will only embarrass the trial. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.3063 of 2016 6. The plaintiff would be called upon to address the issues of title which go beyond the pleadings as they stand. If at all, the civil revision petitioner seeks to assert his title, his remedy is only to file a suit for declaration of his title with or without the relief of injunction or recovery of possession. He is absolutely unnecessary to be impleaded in the present suit. I do not find any reason to take a different opinion than the one taken by the learned District Munsif at Sirkazhi. 7. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. It is open to the civil revision petitioner, to file a suit for declaration, if he so desires. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. 02.06.2025 ssi Index : Yes Internet : Yes Neutral Citation Case: Yes/No 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.3063 of 2016 To: 1.The District Munsif Judge, Sirkazhi. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.3063 of 2016 V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J. ssi C.R.P.(PD).No.3063 of 2016 02.06.2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis