Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Application No.6810 of 2014 has been filed by the applicants praying to permit them to file appeal against the order dated 06.06.2014 made in E.P.No.48 of 1997 on the file of the learned Master of this Court and to set aside the said order in so far as to the extent of affecting the applicants' rights in E.P.No.48 of 1997, In respect of the order dated 27.08.2014 passed by the learned Master Application No.6811 of 2014 has been filed by the applicants praying to permit them to file appeal against the order dated 27.08.2014 passed by the learned Master in E.P.No.48 of 1997, whereby the learned Master rejected all the memos filed by the applicants to include their name in the execution petition as co-decree holders 2 to 5.

4-9.In such circumstances, pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the learned Master resorted to pass an order on 07.07.2000 in E.P.No.48 of 1997, directing the Judgment Debtors in E.P.No.48 of 1997 to execute the deed of reconveyance to the decree holder and deliver possession of the properties within in one month from 07.07.2000 to the decree holder S.V.Matha Prasad.

4-10.Hence, challenging the order dated 07.07.2000 passed by the learned Master, the applicants herein viz., 1)S.V.R.Saroja, 2)S.V.R.Vijaya, 3)S.V.R.Ramprasad & 4)S.V.R.Renuka Devi, who have been substituted as appellants in the Civil Appeal No.224 of 1974 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, have filed appeals in the form of applications, as the co-decree holders, in Application Nos.2872 & 2873 of 2000 before the learned Single Judge of this Court, challenging the correctness and validity of the order dated 07.07.2000 passed by the learned Master in E.P.No.48 of 1997, ordering reconveyance and delivery of possession to S.V.Matha Prasad. In the said applications, after hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge by order dated 24.08.2000 set aside the order passed by the learned Master. The relevant portion of the order dated 24.08.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge is as follows_ 9.Learned counsel for the 1st respondent further stated that in view of the aforesaid decisions, the petitioners cannot be considered as legal heirs of the deceased and as such, the order passed by the learned Master is proper and correct. I am unable to agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. Even in the decree passed by the Apex Court, the first respondent herein had not been shown as a decree holder and this being so, now he has filed the execution petition as if he is the only decree holder entitled to file execution petition excluding the other legal heirs who were impleaded in the Apex Court as early as 1981. Admittedly, the first respondent herein was the third respondent in the Apex Court and he did not oppose the application filed by the petitioners in CMP.No.7242 of 1981 for impleading themselves as parties in the appeal viz., the appellants. The silence on the Part of the first respondent herein as early as 1981 would only indicate that he had waived his right to raise the objection in respect of the status of the petitioners at the earliest point of time. Now, what could not be achieved by the first respondent in the Apex Court is trying to make use of the same and want to enrich himself as if he is the only legal heir of the deceased entitled to re-conveyance of the property from the judgment debtors. When once the petitioners have been impleaded as the legal heirs of the deceased in the Apex Court and they have prosecuted the appeal and succeeded, they are also entitled to get the fruits of the decree. Even assuming that the petitioners are not the legal heirs in accordance with law the first respondent alone cannot claim exclusive re-conveyance of the properties. Now, it appears, there is no dispute inter se between the petitioners on one side and the first respondent on the other side after the demise of the said Ramakrishna Mudaliar. The petitioners represent the second wife and children of the deceased, whereas the first respondent represents the son of the deceased through the first wife. The suit was filed by Ramakrishna Mudaliar for specific performance and the decree passed by the Apex Court can be enjoyed by the petitioners as well as the first respondent. Now, one cannot exclude the other. The dispute with reference to the shares of the first parties in the property can be solved by the parties concerned separately. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the order passed by the learned Master directing re-conveyance of the property exclusively to the first respondent is not proper and correct. The petitioners are also legal heirs of the deceased as they were already brought on record as early as 1981 and the re-conveyance should be ordered in favour of the petitioners also. Hence, these points are answered accordingly.

13.Even though Mrs.S.V.R.Saroja, S.V.R.Vijaya, S.V.R.Ramprasad, S.V.R.Renuka Devi are declared as co-decree holders by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C.A.No.224/1974, they have not approached this Court by filing necessary application to implead them as co-decree holder in E.P.No.48 of 1997..... From a perusal of the impugned order dated 27.08.2014, I find that the reason for rejection of the memos filed by the applicants by the learned Master was that the applicants cannot be impleaded by filing memo and they ought to have taken out an application seeking the permission of the Court to implead them as co-petitioners. But, in my considered opinion, these applicants were already parties before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Subsequently, the learned Single Judge in A.Nos.2872 & 2873 of 2000 and the Division Bench in OSA.No.372 of 2000 asserted the right of the applicants to prosecute E.P.No.48 of 1997 along with 1st respondent-S.V.Matha Prasad, as co-petitioners. In fact, the Division Bench in the nature of direction passed an order that the EP shall proceed by impleading the applicants as co-petitioners along with the 1st respondent S.V.Matha Prasad. Under such circumstances, in my considered opinion, when there is already a direction by the Division Bench to implead the applicants as co-petitioners in the EP, the learned Master ought to have taken note of the said order, based on the memo filed by the applicants and ought to have impleaded the applicants as co-petitioners. Further, in my considered opinion, only when a person is not a party to the proceeding, if such party intends to implead himself into the pending legal proceedings, only then the question of filing an application to implead the said party would arise; in the instant case, already the applicants are on record before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and their right to succeed as LRs of the deceased S.V.Ramakrishnan was also asserted by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench. It is only the 1st respondent S.V.Matha Prasad purposely, by omitting the applicants as well as without making any reference to them, has filed the Execution Petition. Therefore, based on the memos filed by the applicants, the learned Master ought to have impleaded them as co-petitioners in EP.

11-1.Point No.3:- Now the only question that falls for consideration is whether the applicants are entitled to be impleaded as co-petitioners in the EP.

11-2.The learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent vehemently opposed the impleadment of the applicants as co-petitioners in the EP, by making the following submissions:- The applicants are not the plaintiffs in the civil suit and they got substituted themselves as Legal representatives before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after the death of the 1st plaintiff S.V.Ramakrishnan. Since the applicants herein were substituted in C.A.No.224 of 1997 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as appellants, the same will not give the status of decree holders to them. Purpose of substitution is only to ensure that appeal should not get abated. Further more, they have been substituted as appellants before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as Legal Representatives of the deceased S.V.Ramakrishnan in C.A.No.224 of 1997 only on the basis of the un-probated Will dated 15.07.1970 executed by the said deceased S.V.Ramakrishnan. Substitution of the applicants as legal representatives on the basis of the Will executed by the said S.V.Ramakrishnan does not confer any right on the applicants to join as co-petitioners in EP, because they cannot be termed as co-decree holders. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel has also made a detailed argument by inviting the attention of this Court to the definition for Legal Representatives under Section 2(11) of CPC and under Section 213 of Indian Succession Act. Further, the learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent by inviting the attention of this Court to Article 137 of Limitation Act, submitted that the time for impleadment is only within three years from when the right to apply accrues. Thus, according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, the applicants ought to have impleaded themselves in the EP within three years from the date of filing the EP; therefore, at this juncture, they cannot be impleaded. In this regard, the learned senior counsel relied upon number of decisions.