RAVI KHUNTETA Vs. SANJAY RANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O.A. 110/2014.

(2.) THE present appeal is filed seeking to impugn the order dated 23.5.2014. The impugned order dismissed the application of the appellant under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleadment.

(3.) THE applicant is the father of the defendant. He has filed the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as a party claiming that the suit property is a part of ancestral undivided agricultural land. Defendant is described as an errant son who is only creating trouble for the family. It is urged that the defendant cannot claim entitlement of 1/5th share in the undivided agricultural land in question. Some share would come to the share of the appellant on occurrence of actual physical partition of the entire undivided agricultural land of the family measuring 17 Bighas and 3 Biswas. It is stated that the respondent would actually be entitled to 1/6th share and not 1/5th share as claimed in the plaint. The 1/6th share would come to 9 Biswas only. This share would also come to the defendant only after physical partition of the joint agricultural land takes place amongst the co -owners.