K VENKATARAMAIAH SETTY Vs. B R SEETHARAMAPPA SETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant filed an application before the Court below under order 22 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the C. P. C. to implead him as plaintiff-11 in the suit that is pending and in which the plaintiffs had sought declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendants. The Trial Court dismissed the said application by observing that the applicant will get better title to the property only after his vendorse succeed in the suit aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant is before this Court.

(2.) HEARD Sri S. V. Shastri, the learned Counsel for the appellant, sri Arabatti, the learned Counsel for R-2, R-3 and R-7, and Smt. Pallavi, the learned Counsel for R-12 and R-14. The learned Counsel for the appellant, referring to Order 22 Rule 10, submitted that as the applicant has purchased the property in question from the plaintiff, he is interested in the outcome of the suit and, therefore, the Trial Court could not have declined to implead him as plaintiff-11. He also placed reliance on a ruling reported in ILR 2004 Karnataka 1148 to contend that a transferee, though not brought on record under Order 22 Rule 10, is entitled to move an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the cp. C. to set aside the decree passed against his transferor. Therefore, the impugned order is erroneous in law.

(3.) ORDER 22 Rule 10 of the C. P. C. reads this: