KEMPAIAH Vs. JAVAREGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS herein are defendants 1 and 2 in O. S. No. 145 of 1996 on the file of the Civil Judge at Mandya.

(2.) RESPONDENT 1 is the plaintiff in the suit. Javaregowda filed this suit to declare him as the absolute owner in lawful possession of the suit property and to grant an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. After the evidence of Javaregowda, his wife Mariyamma who is the 2nd respondent in this case, filed an application under Order 1, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code requesting the Court to allow her to come on record as an additional plaintiff, on the ground that the whereabouts of javaregowda are not known to her since 1999 and since the suit property is the joint family property, she has a right to prosecute the case. This application is allowed by the Trial Court and she has been permitted to come on record as additional plaintiff. This order is called in question in this writ petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. According to the petitioner, the Trial court has committed a serious error in allowing the application of the 2nd respondent as there cannot be any presumption that the 1st respondent is deemed to be a dead person since his whereabouts are not known to the 2nd respondent from 1999. When she has filed an application to come on record as additional plaintiff, not even two years was completed from the date of alleged missing of plaintiff Javaregowda. Therefore, he requests this Court to set aside this order.