SUDHEENDRA Vs. A. ARVIND RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 5205/2010, being aggrieved by the order dated 11.10.2012 made on I.A. No. 12/2012 by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, filed this writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner filed the suit seeking for declaration declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and also sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property. In the plaint, it was contended that the plaintiff is the beneficiary of the Will dated 16.09.2002 in respect of eastern portion of the property bearing No. 32, measuring East to West : 25 feet and North to South : 26 feet, situated at Sarakki, 5th Main Shakambarinagar, J.P. Nagar 1st Phase, Bangalore. After the death of the first defendant, the petitioner is entitled to enjoy the said property, as the life time interest is created on the first defendant. However, the second respondent is receiving the rent from the tenant who is occupying the said premises. In view of that, an application i.e., I.A. No. 12/2012 has been filed to implead the tenant who is occupying the premises as the defendant in the suit. The said application was opposed by the second defendant. The Trial Court after considering the matter in detail, rejected the said application on the ground that unless the issue regarding the Will and owners of the property is settled, the tenant of the premises cannot be impleaded as a party. The tenant is not a proper and necessary party to the suit. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the said petition.

(3.) ON the other hand, Sri. K. Narasimha Murthy, learned Advocate appearing for the 2nd respondent argued in support of the order passed by the trial court and contended that the dispute is with regard to the Will dated 16.09.2002 said to have been executed by Smt. Kanakalatha creating life interest on the first defendant. Unless the Will is proved, the petitioner is not entitled for any right in the suit schedule property. For adjudicating the said dispute, the tenant is not a necessary and proper party and sought for dismissal of the writ petition.