VARADAPURA GANGAMMA Vs. KOLLI RATNAKISHOR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is plaintiff/decree holder filed the above writ petition against the order dated 24.11.2014 on I.A. No. 3 in FDP.13/12 allowing the application filed by the proposed respondents 12 to 15.

(2.) THE present petitioner filed suit in O.S. No. 5/2010 for partition and separate possession before the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Hospet, against her brother Varadapura Mariyappa and others in respect of suit schedule property contending that all the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and plaintiff and defendants are joint family members and according to the plaintiff the suit came to be decreed on 22.02.2011 and against the said judgment and decree the contesting defendants filed regular appeal in RA. No. 33/2011 which came to be dismissed on 4.8.2012. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed FDP. No. 13/12. During the pendency of the FDP proceedings Applicants 1 to 4 filed application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, contending that the respondents Varadapura Mariyappa and others are colluded together and filed a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S. No. 5/2010 and obtained a decree on 22.2.2011 by suppressing the factual facts in respect of the petition schedule at item No. 1 bearing Sy. No. 290F measuring 18 acres 73 guntas of Ankasamudra Village, H.B. Halli taluk and the said item No. 1 was purchased by the father of the applicants Koli Rama Mohan Rao under a registered sale deed dated 10.2.1969 executed by its owner by name Varadapura Hanumappa S/o Yallappa and Varadapura Yallappa and Dyamappa sons of Varadapura Tindappa jointly. The said three persons being absolute owners of said property have sold the same in favour of father of the applicants and ever since the date of sale deed, the applicant's father and after his demise the applicants are in possession and enjoyment of the same throughout jointly and aggrieved by the illegal mutation entry made on the basis of the alleged concocted partition deed dated 28.1.2010 the respondents 1, 2, 5 to 7 and 9 to 11 got mutated their names in the mutation register on 14.10.2011. The said mutations were challenged by the applicants before the Assistant Commissioner in Revision No. Rev./ROR/Revision No. 200/2012 -13 and the Assistant Commissioner after hearing both parties allowed the appeal and set aside the illegal mutations on 22.1.2013.

(3.) THE said application was resisted only by the petitioner/plaintiff by filing objections and other respondents/defendants have not filed objections to the impleading application. After considering the entire material on record, the trial court has allowed the impleading application and permitted the impleading applicants to come on record as respondent Nos. 12 to 13.