Lakshmamma and Others vs T.K. Deepak and Others

B. Manohar, J.—Petitioners are the applicants in OS No. 2428/2006 on the file of the XXIV Additional City Civil Judge and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH No. 6). Being aggrieved by the order dated 8th December, 2014 dismissing the application-I.A. No. 16 filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. by the proposed applicants, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

The 1st respondent herein filed the suit seeking, for declaration declaring that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. The contesting defendants filed written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the issues. The parties have led evidence. Further, partial decree was passed in the suit in view of the compromise petition filed by defendants No. 1 to 6 and 8. The said decree was challenged by the 7th defendant in RFA No. 630/2012. This Court had disposed off the appeal with a direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the same within a period of six months and the parties to maintain status regarding the nature of the properties as it exists. After disposal of the said appeal, the applicants filed I.A. No. 16 to come on record as defendants No. 9 and 10 contending that while partitioning the joint family properties, a condition has been imposed that the family members cannot alienate the joint family properties to the third party. The applicants also have right over the properties and they can object for alienation of the properties on the basis of a registered partition deed entered into in the year 1955 and sought for allowing I.A. No. 16.

The plaintiff filed objections to the said application contending that the applicants cannot be allowed to come on record. At the instance of other family members, who have already entered into compromise with the plaintiff, they set up these applicants to come on record to object for passing of the decree and sought for dismissal of I.A. No. 16. The Trial Court after considering the matter in detail and taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter rejected the application holding that the applicants are not necessary and proper parties for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. The applicants claimed their interest on the basis of the partition deed of the year 1955. Hence, the applicants have not made out any case to implead them as defendants No. 9 and 10 in the suit. The Trial Court also held that I.A. No. 16 is hit by Section 4 of Partition Act. Being aggrieved by the order impugned, the present writ petition has been filed.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the order impugned and other relevant records.

The records clearly disclose that the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction on the basis of the sale deed dated 11.3.1992. Admittedly, the suit is of the year 2006. The parties have led evidence. In fact, there was a partial decree pursuant to the compromise entered into between the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 6 and 8. Apart from that, the Division Bench of this Court disposed off RFA No. 630/2012 and directed the Trial Court to dispose of the matter within a period of six months. After passing of the partial decree of compromise, the applicants have come forward with I.A. No. 16 praying to implead them as defendants No. 9 and 10 in the suit based on the registered partition deed of the year 1955. The petitioners have to establish their rights independently. In the suit schedule property, they cannot be impleaded as parties unless they establish their rights. The Trial Court taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter rejected I.A. No. 16. The petitioners have not made out prima facie case to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

The writ petition stands dismissed.

The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in the instant writ petition.