BASAVARAJ Vs. MAHADEVAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit for partition, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed an application seeking to incorporate one additional property to the suit schedule. In the affidavit filed in support of the applications, it was contended that the property sought to be incorporated was also the ancestral property of family of the petitioners though in the records the name of certain other persons had been entered and as a consequence they were also required to be impleaded as they were proper and necessary parties.

(2.) The Trial Court, by the impugned order, has however proceeded to reject both, the applications for impleading as well as the application for amendment of the plaint which had been filed for incorporating one more property.

(3.) The reason set forth in the impugned order by the Trial Court is that none of the defendants had taken the contention that the suit was bad for partial partition and the property which was sought to be included were not standing in the name of any of the members of the joint family and this prima facie indicated that the property was not joint family property.