GANGAMMA Vs. Y. CHANDRAGUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners - respondent Nos.5 and 6 in FDP No.9 of 2000 on the file of the learned III Additional I Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Mysuru, are impugning the order passed on IA.No.15 filed under Order 20 Rule 18 read with Order 26 Rule 13 read with Sec. 151 of CPC, dismissing the same.

(2.) Heard Sri R S Ravi, learned senior advocate for Sri D V Narendra Gowda, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S A Marathi Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.1(a). Perused the materials on record.

(3.) Learned senior advocate for the petitioners contended that initially, the respondents herein filed the suit OS No.291 of 1991 seeking partition and separate possession of the schedule properties. Defendant - Ashwathnarayan Setty is the brother of the plaintiff who was having title over the suit schedule properties, but he has never contested the suit. During the pendency of suit, the said Ashwathnarayan Setty was shown as dead and the subsequent purchasers were impleaded as defendant Nos.2 to 4, even they have not contested the suit. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff for partition and separate possession was decreed by passing a preliminary decree. Later, the plaintiff has filed FDP No.9 of 2000 praying for passing the final decree. During the pendency of final decree, respondent Nos.5 and 6 came to know about the same and got them impleaded in the final decree proceedings. They came to know that the preliminary decree was obtained for playing fraud and by collusion between the plaintiff and defendants and therefore IA.No.15 was filed seeking to set aside the preliminary decree, which is the product of fraud, misrepresentation and collusion. The said application came to be dismissed.