A. MURALEEDHARAN AND A. SADANANDAN Vs. A. SREEJA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 105 of 2007 of the Sub Court, Vatakara, a suit for partition filed by the first respondent/plaintiff. First respondent claimed partition and separate possession of 1/3 share of the suit property - 19 percents claiming that the said property belongs to the first respondent and petitioners as per a partition deed of the year, 1980. Petitioners filed written statement disputing various claims and later, an additional written statement with a counter claim. In short, their contention is that partition deed of the year, 1980 in which they are represented by a power of attorney who acted against their interest and on other grounds is not binding on them, properties are to be partitioned as if there was no such partition in the year, 1980 and that an item of the property which was not included in the partition deed of the year, 1967 is also available for partition. They prayed that certain documents including the partition deed of the year, 1980 be set aside.

(2.) THE counter claim was appropriately answered by the first respondent.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 that in the nature of claim made in the counter claim, supplemental defendants 5 to 31 were required to be impleaded. Learned counsel submits that supplemental defendants 5 to 10 (sought to be impleaded) are alienees under respondents 2 and 3/defendants 3 and 4 and that supplemental defendants 11 to 31 (sought to be impleaded) are also entitled to share in the item of property sought to be additionally included in the suit and which according to the petitioners was left unpartitioned in the partition deed of the year, 1967.