CHANDRALEKHA Vs. B V SUJATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is questioning the order dated 23-10-2007 passed in O.S.No.82/2007 by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Arasikere, allowing I.A.No.II for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff on record and directing the petitioner herein to be arrayed as the third defendant.

(2.) Facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are as follows: Smt. Annapurnamma W/o late B.S. Vishwanatha Shetty filed a suit in O.S.No.82/2007 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Arasikere for the relief of declaration and injunction against Sri A.V. Gopalakrishna Shetty and his son Sri A.G. Anil Kumar. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff Smt. Annapurnamma expired on 10.7.2007. An application under Order 22, Rule 3 CPC came to be filed which interlocutory application was numbered as I.A.No.II. The said application was accompanied by an affidavit of one Sri. B.V. Sathyamurthy S/o B.S. Vishwanathshetty and Smt. B.V. Annapurnamma. In the said affidavit it was stated that names of the legal heirs of late Smt. B.V. Annapurnamma has been stated in the application at Sl.No. 1 to 7 and Smt. A.G. Chandralekha daughter of Smt. B.V. Annapurnamma who was at Sl.No. 1 was acting contrary to the interest of the other legal heirs of late Smt. B.V. Annapurnamma and accordingly it was prayed that Smt. A.G. Chandralekha is to be brought on record as defendant and other legal heirs be brought on record as the plaintiffs representing the estate of the deceased since the right to sue survives on them. The said fact had also been stated in the application I.A.No.II. To this application objections was filed by Smt. A.G. Chandralekha contending that she cannot be brought on record as defendant merely because there is divergence of interest between herself and other legal representatives and the scope of application to bring the legal representatives on record being limited, she sought for dismissal of the application I.A.No.II.

(3.) The Court below on consideration of the rival contentions came to the conclusion that if the writ petitioner i.e., Chandralekha was showing any hostile attitude against other L.Rs. she can be definitely be transposed as defendant and the same would not take away the right of the petitioner in getting her share and right over the suit properties and accordingly allowed the application by its order dated 23.10.2007.