HONAMMA Vs. C.H. HONNEGOWDA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order dated 4.6.2014 passed on an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC filed in FDP 8/1990 pending on the file of Court of Prl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Arsikere is called in question in the present petition.

(2.) THE petitioner herein, was the first applicant and had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC seeking to come on record as respondent to the said final decree proceedings on the ground that she has a share in the suit schedule property in view of Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, which has come into effect from 9.9.2005. The said application has been dismissed by a considered order dated 4.6.2014. Hence, the present petition is filed. Several grounds have been urged in the present petition.

(3.) SUIT had been filed by plaintiff C.H. Honnegowda, respondent No. 1 herein for partition and separate possession against his father and brothers who are defendant Nos. 1 to 5 in the suit. The said suit filed for partition and separate possession came to be decreed and pursuant to the preliminary decree drawn in O.S.152/1981, final decree proceedings have been initiated and it is numbered as FDP 8/1990. The said application had been filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC by Smt. Honamma on the ground that she has been looking after her parents for the past 20 -25 years and that plaintiff and other defendants have purposefully left her from being made as party to the suit and that she is entitled for a share as per Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act which has come into effect from 9.9.2005. The said application came to be objected to by the plaintiff and ultimately, the application has been dismissed on the ground that she was born prior to 1956, the year in which the Hindu Succession Act came into force and therefore she is not a necessary party. The decision reported in SA -2011 -310 relied upon by the applicant is not applicable to the facts of the present case.