MUNIRAJU Vs. BUDDAMMA BIN APPAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner being the impleading applicant under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC in LAC No.9/2015, wherein he sought to come on record to represent the deceased Appaiah has called in question correctness of the order passed on I.A.Nos.4 and 5, whereby the petitioner's application for impleading came to be rejected.

(2.) It is noted that the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC came to be filed by the petitioner stating that he is the grand son of Appaiah and that the said Appaiah had filed a suit for partition against Muniyamma and others in O.S.No.917/2008 and during the pendency of the said suit, Appaiah died and the petitioner was brought on record as the legal representative of deceased Appaiah. It is further submitted that the petitioner was entitled for share of the claim amount. The said application came to be objected by claimant No.11, who had filed objections to the said application disputing the relationship of the claimant, while asserting that the claimant does not belong to the family of the original grantee- Narayanappa or his wife Muniyamma or Hanumanthrayappa, who is claimant No.11.

(3.) It is not in dispute that LAC No.9/2015 is a reference under Sec. 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and as on the date of it being referred to Civil Court, Appaiah had died. Reference came to be made in terms as reflected at Annexure- D dtd. 9/6/2015 in light of the rival claims regarding the compensation amount including the pendency of certain litigation.