Smt. Lakshmamma vs Sri. Narayanappa & Ors.

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 27.07.2022 passed on IA.No.10 in OS.No.527/2007 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli (for short ‘the trial Court’).

Heard Sri.B.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Santhosh, learned counsel appearing for Sri.M.S.Varadarajan, learned counsel for respondent No.14 and meticulously perused the material on record.

Respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein filed a suit in OS.No.527/2007 seeking the relief of partition, wherein the petitioner herein was arrayed as defendant No.3. During the pendency of the said suit, one Smt.Rathnamma, respondent No.14 herein, filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’), seeking impleadment on the ground that Sri.Muniswamy and Smt.Chikka Pillamma had sold the property under a registered sale deed dated 02.02.1996 in favour of her mother, Smt.Lakshmamma, who, from the date of purchase, became the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property and revenue records were mutated in her name. It is further deposed that after the death of her mother Smt.Lakshmamma, the respondent No.14/applicant is in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs in the suit by contending that a false affidavit has been sworn by the applicant, and Smt.Lakshmamma is alive and contesting the proceedings. The petitioner - Smt.Lakshmama, who is defendant No.3 in the suit, has produced two death certificates. Names of the deceased in both the death certificates are shown as Lakshmamma and in one certificate, the date of death is shown as 04.05.1999, while in other it is shown as 23.02.2003.

It is contented that the place of death mentioned in both the death certificates is different and that the first death certificate, produced as Annexure-D1 was used by the very same respondent No.14/applicant to get the mutation changed in her name by fraudulent representation. Be that as it may, the petitioner/defendant No.3 herself has filed the present writ petition contending that by misrepresentation of facts, the applicant -Smt.Rathnamma, had filed an application claiming to be her legal representative of the petitioner. In my considered view, the contention of the petitioner requires consideration, and the trial Court has committed a grave error in allowing the application for impleadment without assigning any reasons, particularly when specific objections had been raised by some of the parties to the suit that defendant No.3 is alive and the applicant is not the legal heir of defendant No.3. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

No order as to costs.