RAVINDRANATH BAJPE Vs. SHARADA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner claims that his father by name Konchappa Devadiga acquired immovable property measuring 1 acre 72 cents and 0.12 cents in Sy. No. 8/1A and on his death the revenue registers recorded the name of the petitioner's mother none other than the widow-1st respondent, herein, being the seniormost member in the petitioner's family. According to the petitioner, his mother has no right, title and interest over the immovable properties and the acquisition proceedings commenced by the State to acquire the said property for a public purpose to wit for Bajpe Airport, in the name of the 1st respondent-mother, without notice issued to the petitioner, though petitioner's father had made a bequest of one half portion of the said property in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner asserts that his siblings and mother instituted O.S. No. 32/ 2002 before the III Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), for declaration, partition and separate possession of various immovable properties belonging to the family at Bajpai and Malawar villages, whence the petitioner arraigned as defendant No. 1, resisted the suit by filing written statement propounding the Will whereunder one half of the property was bequeathed in favour of the petitioner by his father. Petitioner's mother-1st respondent having made an application under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short LA Act, to the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer seeking enhancement of compensation, when found to be within the prescribed period, the Deputy Commissioner made a reference to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation and deposited the compensation amount in terms of the award. The III Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Mangalore, D.K. registered the reference as LAC 14/2008. In that proceeding, petitioner filed LA. No. III under Order 1 Rule 10(2), CPC to be impleaded as a 'supplemental claimant'. In the affidavit accompanying the application it was stated that the petitioner being the eldest son of late Konchappa Devadiga, the properties were purchased in the name of his widow, and was not the sole and absolute owner of the properties, and in view of the Will dated. 12.12.1970 bequeathing one half portion of the properties in favour of the petitioner. It was further stated that the petitioner, his mother and other siblings, hostile to the petitioner instituted O.S. 32/2002 for declaration, partition and separate possession, and being a necessary and proper party, was to be impleaded as a 'supplemental claimant'.

(2.) That application was opposed by the claimants in the reference petition denying the Will dt. 12.12.1970, on the allegation that the properties were self acquired properties of her husband since deceased and that the petitioner had no right to be impleaded in the said case.

(3.) The reference court framed points for consideration and declined to accept the plea that petitioner was a necessary and proper party and therefore, a 'supplemental claimant' and accordingly dismissed the application by order dated. 7.1.2013. Hence this petition.