PUTTASWAMY AND OTHERS Vs. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are before this Court challenging the order dated 6-1-2016 made on LA. No. 15 in O.S. No. 1014 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala, whereby the Trial Court rejected their application for impleading.

(2.) The respondents nos. 1 to 7 and 10, who are plaintiffs before the Trial Court filed a suit for partition of the suit schedule properties, contending that they are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The defendants filed the written statement denying the entire plaint averments and contending that there was an earlier partition and in view of the same, suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable. After framing of the issues, the present application i.e., I.A. No. 15 is filed by the applicants/petitioners under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) read with Sec. 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to implead them as defendants nos. 5 to 9 in the suit. It is the case of the applicants/petitioners that the suit schedule property is a gramathana land totally measuring 1 acre 13 guntas situated at Sheshagiripalya Village, Bangalore North Taluk; the landowners of said Sheshagiripalya Village i.e., Survey Nos. 1 to 6 and sub-numbers are owners holding the agricultural lands; but, the gramatana land maintained intact as that of joint ownership and that all the holders of the said survey number are having equal entitlement to enjoy the gramatana property; all the impleading applicants are having property and enjoying agricultural lands in their respective portions and they are entitled to hold right over suit schedule property on apportionment that requires to be done by the Panchayath Authorities who are the Competent Authorities; though the applicants have given representation, the concerned Panchayath Authorities have failed to make such apportionment and demarcation of portion of property in their individual names and therefore they are the proper and necessary parties to the suit.

(3.) The application for impleading was resisted by the plaintiffs by filing objections. The plaintiffs have denied the averments made in the application and specifically contended that the suit schedule property'- is a gramathana property, which originally belongs to father of the plaintiffs. The grandfather of the plaintiffs viz., Dodd alingappa had purchased the entire village of Seshagiripalya from his vendor by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 14-10-1903 and subsequently after advent of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, the agricultural lands measuring S3 acres 9 guntas situated at Seshagiripalya and Pillahalli were regranted in favour of family members and the suit schedule property remained as a joint family property and was in possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs nos. 1 and 2 and the applicants have no manner of right, title and interest and they are not [necessary and proper parties to the suit and hence prays for dismissal of the application.