MARIYAPPA Vs. DEVARAJ & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is assailing the order passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Vijayapura on I.A.No.VIII in O.S.No.602/2010 dated 09.07.2018 whereby I.A.No.VIII filed by the petitioner herein under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Order 6, Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed. O.S.No.602/2010 has been filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein seeking for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. In the said suit proceedings I.A.No.VIII has been filed by the petitioner herein to bring the proposed defendant Nos.4 and 5 on record for the reason that defendant No.1/respondent No.4 herein has executed registered agreement of sale in favour of proposed defendant No.5 on 12.08.2013 during the pendency of the suit, to alienate half portion of two suit schedule properties. Trial Court rejected the said application. Hence, this writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel Sri B.M.Angadi, appearing for the petitioner would contend that the defendant No.1 has ? ..?th share in the suit schedule properties as admitted by him in the written statement filed before the trial Court. However, he has entered into registered agreement of sale with the proposed defendant No.5 to alienate half share in the two suit schedule properties, In the event of sale deeds registered in favour of defendant No.5 with respect to the said suit properties, the shares of the other members of the joint family would get reduced in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the proposed defendant Nos.4 and 5 are necessary parties to the suit.

(3.) Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Krushna Chandra Nayak v. Biswajit Sahoo and others - AIR 1999 Orissa 115 .