KRISHNAPPA Vs. GOVINDAPPA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the impugned order, the court below has rejected the application filed by the petitioners for impleading in R.A. No. 80/12.

(2.) THE records reveal that respondent No. 1 herein filed a suit for declaration that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and that the Will said to have been executed in favour of Muniswamy by Late Akkamma be cancelled. Consequently, the other reliefs are also sought for. In the said suit, the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 herein also set up a Will said to have been executed in his favour by his uncle Muniswamy Naidu. The suit came to be dismissed holding that neither the Will executed in favour of Muniswamy (respondent No. 2 herein) nor the Will executed in favour of plaintiff (respondent No. 1 herein) were proved. The plaintiff did not file an appeal. On the other hand, the first defendant namely Muniswamy filed R.A. No. 80/12 inasmuch as, he was aggrieved by certain of the observations made by the trial Court with regard to the proof of genuineness of the Will executed in his favour by Muniswamy Naidu. During the subsistence of R.A. NO. 18/12, the application came to be filed by the petitioners for impleading on the ground that they are the children of Late Chikkananjappa and that they have got right over the property. The impleading applicants also submitted that the Will is not executed by Akkamma in favour of Muniswamy (respondent No. 2 herein).

(3.) THE dispute was only between the plaintiff Govindappa Naidu and the first defendant Muniswamy. The revenue officer is also made a formal party to the suit. The lis is between the plaintiff and the first defendant. The decree, if any, would be binding on only those two parties and not anybody. The judgment and decree to be passed in R.A. No. 80/12 could be judgment and decree in -personal and not in -rem. In view of the same, the petitioners cannot have any grievance. Even if, respondent No. 1 herein succeeds in the regular appeal, the said judgment would not be binding on the petitioners. With these observations, the petition stands dismissed.