BASAVARAJ ALIAS MADHU Vs. SMT. SUVAMAMMA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's writ petition against the order dated 20.12.2013 on I.A.No.2 made in R.A.No. 115/2010 on the file of the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, dismissing the application filed under Order I, Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure to implead one P.Shekar, Son of late A.D. Puttanna, subsequent purchaser during pendency of the appeal as 5th respondent.

(2.) The petitioner herein filed suit in O.S.No. 70/1996 for the relief of partition and separate possession against the defendants contending that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and he is entitled to a share. The defendants filed written statement, denied the plaint averments and contended that the suit schedule properties are not joint family properties and suit is not maintainable, etc. After contest, the Trial Court dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 25.02.2010.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the petitioner/plaintiff filed R.A. 115/2010 on the file of the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru. It is the case of the petitioner before the lower appellate Court that during pendency of the said appeal, defendants have sold item No. 1 of the suit schedule property in favour of one P.Shekar. Therefore, filed application under Order I, Rule 10 r/w Sec. 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to implead the said P.Shekar/subsequent purchaser as 5th respondent in the appeal, contending that sale executed by the defendants in favour of the impleading applicant is with an intention to defraud the plaintiff's legitimate share and therefore, sought to implead him as 5th respondent as he is proper and necessary party to the proceeding, in order to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings.