M.R. MAHESH Vs. H.N. VENKATACHALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is questioning the legality and correctness of the order passed by the City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 2060/2008 on LA. filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC dt. 16.11.2011. The suit was instituted by one Nagarathnamma challenging the Gift deed said to have been executed by her in favour of Smt. Nirmala who is defendant -1. During her life time, 6th defendant Venkatachala was transposed as plaintiff No. 2. Venkatachala claims to be an adopted son of plaintiff - Nagarathnamma. The plaintiff -Nagarathnamma died. After her death, the present petitioner made an application to come on record as her LR based on the will said to have been executed by her on 21.4.1999. The said application was registered by the co -plaintiff Venkatachala and defendant -5 Shymala. Evidence was let in on the said application. The application came to be rejected. Challenging the legality and correctness of the same, the present petition is filed.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Sreevastha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shivaprakash, who is appearing for the respondent -1 and Mr. Ganesh, who is representing respondent -3.

(3.) MR . Shivaprakash, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits the petitioner is none other than the son of Nirmala against whom Nagarathnamma had filed a suit. According to him, petitioner could not have been come on record as a legatee because respondent -1 is the adopted son of Nagarathnamma who is already on record. He further submits that the petitioner was required to establish the will in order to claim the property by filing separate suit and if the petitioner is allowed to come on record to contest the case which is filed against his mother, at any moment he may withdraw the suit or he may request the court to dismiss the suit, in which event the 1st respondent's right as adopted son of Nagarathnamma can be affected.