H.M. JAGADEESH Vs. BASAVANNA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT No. 3 in O.S. 60/2003 on the file of the II Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysore aggrieved by the common order dated 11.1.2013 rejecting IA -13 under Order 8 Rule 1(a) and IA -14 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has presented these petitions.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 instituted O.S. 60/2003 arraigning respondents 2 and 3 as defendants 1 and 2, to declare, as null and void, and not binding on him the sale deed dated 6.8.1959 executed by his father in favour of the father of defendants, and for permanent injunction restraining defendants from receiving compensation from the Mysore Urban Development Authority, Mysore, on acquisition of the suit schedule property. That suit was contested by filing written statement of defendants 1 and 2. Thereafterwards petitioner is said to have made an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC to be impleaded as defendant No. 3, accompanied by an affidavit stating that plaintiff is the son of one Dodda Mugaiah @ Makaiah, who executed the sale deed in favour of one H.S. Nagappa, since deceased, the paternal uncle of the petitioner, while petitioner's father, by name H.S. Mahadevappa, since deceased, is the brother of H.S. Nagappa, also no more. It was also asserted that the suit schedule property was subject matter of joint family property in which petitioner has an undivided interest, hence is a proper and necessary party. On impleading the petitioner as 3rd respondent, opposed the suit by filing a written statement on 27.11.2007, inter alia, stating in paragraph 2, that petitioner's father H.S. Nagappa and plaintiff Basavanna are Class I heirs and further that plaintiff's father is the paternal uncle, while H.S. Mahadevappa and H.S. Nagappa are brothers, and all are related to the plaintiff.

(3.) THAT application was opposed by filing statement of objections of the plaintiff inter alia asserting that by allowing the application, it would take away the valuable rights accrued to the plaintiff, causing untold hardship and prejudice.