MUNIVENKATAMMA Vs. RAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri D. S. Hosmath, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri C. B. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) THIS revision-petition arises from the judgment and order dt. 9-9-1999 passed by the IInd Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in reference case LAC. No. 52/97 on I. A. under O. 1, R. 10 of C. P. C. , whereby the revision-petitioners had sought their impleadment as parties, alleging that they had also got title over the land in dispute as the land was granted in favour of Ramaiah, present respondent, who is said to be the elder brother of the husband of 1st revision-petitioner, in the capacity as head of joint family. The revision-petitioners contended, in view of the above, they are also entitled to a share in the compensation. The learned Civil Judge rejected the application observing that he has no jurisdiction to decide this question. As such, the application was rejected. Feeling aggrieved by that order, the applicants have come up before this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision-petitioners contended that O. 1, R. 10 of C. P. C. , confers jurisdiction on the Court to implead all parties who are necessary or add all parties whose presence is necessary for proper determination of the question so as to avoid any further litigation. This should be the criteria to determine the question of impleadment. The learned counsel contended that the learned Court below in this case instead of considering this aspect, has rejected the application on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to decide that question of interest or share of applicants in land or compensation thereto. The learned counsel for the revision-petitioners further contended may it be so that the Tribunal is empowered to decide the question relating to share in the land and for that the process is prescribed under the Land Reforms Act and thereunder the Tribunal, after impleadment of applicant and after he being given an opportunity of filing written statement, decide the point in question as to whether the original claimant in the compensation case was the sole tenant of the land or the land was acquired or granted in favour of Ramaiah in his individual capacity or on behalf of the joint family and that question the reference Court, no doubt, could not decide, but it has to refer to it the Tribunal and on the basis of decision of the Tribunal, it could disburse the compensation amount according to the findings and shares determined by the Tribunal. The learned counsel contended, as such, the learned Civil Judge illegally refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under O. 1, R. 10, C. P. C.