INDIRABAI Vs. SHYAMASUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals are preferred against the same judgment and decree dated 4-6-1987 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Dharwad in O.S No. 113 of 1978. R.F.A. (F R.) No. 9060/87 is filed by the 1st defendant and RFA. No. 582/87 is filed by plaintiffs 1 and 3.

(2.) The office has not registered R F.A. (F.R) No. 9060/87 on the ground that the appellant therein has not impleaded the second defendant in the suit It is submitted by Sri Shivaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-first defendant that the property alienated by the 1st defendant-appellant in favour of the second defendant has been excluced from the decree of the trial court on holding that the alienation was good as it was for legal necessity. The first defendant-appellant does not challenge the said portion of the decree. Hence the second defendant is not a necessary party to the appeal preferred by the 1st defendant. In view of the fact that the appellant does not challenge the correctness of the finding recorded, and the decree passed, by the trial court in respect of the alienation made in favour of the second defendant, it is not necessary to implead the second defendant in the appeal. Hence the office objection is over ruled. It is directed to give a number to the appeal.

(3.) The Appeal R.F.A. (F.R.) 9060/87 is also heard along with RFA. No 582/ 87. Sri Kulkarni learned counsel appearing for the appellants in R.F.A. 582/87 also takes notice for respondents 1 and 2 in the connected appeal R.F.A. (F.R.) 9060/87. The 2nd respondent in R.F.A. No. 582/87 is also represented by Sri Ramakant V. Desai, Advocate. Sri Shivaswamy, Advocate has also filed power for respondent-1 in R.F.A. 582/87.