IMPORTANT CASE LAWS - Madras High Court

(2011) 3 MLJ 553
V.L. Dhandapani
vs
Revathy Ramachandran, Kumar, Village Administrative Officer, Vedanenmeli, Perur Post
Code of Civil Procedure (5 of 1908), Order 22 Rule 10 – Assignment of interest during pendency of suit –
Suit – Suit for permanent injunction – Bona fide purchaser of suit property – Impleading of transferee pendent lite
as party in suit – Scope of.
FACTS IN BRIEF:
Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order passed by the
lower Court whereby the application filed by the petitioner who is a bona fide purchaser of the property during the
pendency of the suit to implead him as a second plaintiff in the suit was dismissed by observing that previous
cause of action cannot be the cause of action for the petitioner against the defendants and that the remedy for the
petitioner is to file a fresh suit with new cause of action.
QUERY:
Held:
Whether the transferee pendent lite is entitled to be impleaded as a party in the suit?
In one line of decisions by the Supreme Court, it has been held that the transferee pendent lite has got
substantial interest in the subject matter of the case and hence, his presence is necessary and so he has to be
impleaded as a party. In another set of decisions by the Apex Court cited on behalf of the 6 th respondent, it has
been held that the transferee pendent lite need not be included as a party to the suit in the absence of leave of the
Court for transfer of the property during its pendency and that such purchaser can neither be termed as a
necessary party nor proper party. In view of the above said position, the Court deems it fit to refer the matter to a
larger bench for deciding the legal issue to be followed by Courts.
2011 (2) CTC 635
Muniappan
vs
Ponni
Constitution of India, Article 21 – Right to Privacy – Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 112 – Husband
suspecting paternity of child filed an Application to direct Blood Test upon him – Trial Court dismissed Application
– Revision filed – Record show that Husband had made out a prima facie case – He alleged that he had not visited
his wife for a considerable period – There would be no impediment in ordering DNA Test – Order of Trial Court set
aside – Civil Revision Petition allowed – Case law discussed.
Facts:
Husband filed an Application for dissolution of marriage. During enquiry husband filed Application to direct the
Blood Test upon the second son, whose paternity he suspected. He alleged that he had no access to his wife for a
considerable period and therefore, the child was not born to him. The Trial Court dismissed the Application on the ground
that the marriage is proved and would intervene into her fundamental rights. Husband preferred Revision. The High Court
considering the citation in Sharda v. Dharmapal as well as other decisions reversed the findings of the Trial Court observing
that directing Blood test would not be violative of fundamental rights.
26