VARADAPPA GOUNDER Vs. KARUPPA GOUNDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the order in I. ANo. 502 of 1982 in O. S. No. 184 of 1982on the file of the District munsif, Thiruchengode.

(2.) SHORT facts are: Respondent's father, Mottaian alias Adakkathia Gounder, filed the suit in O. S. No. 527 of 1959, for partition and separate possession of his 1/5 share in the suit property. In that suit, on 16. 7. 1960 a preliminary decree was passed. Later he filed I. A. No. 698 of 1965 for passing of a final decree. A commissioner was appointed to suggest the modes of division and he had filed his report. The defendants filed L. A. No. 1268 of 1967 putting forth their objections to the commissioner's report and sought appointment of a fresh commissioner. That application was dismissed on 4. 7. 1967. A revision petition, filed against that order before this Court, was also dismissed. By then l. A. No. 698 of 1965 was pending. On 12. 5. 1970 the plaintiff died and so i. A. No. 698 of 1965 was allowed to be dismissed on 30. 6. 1970. Later the respondent filed I. A. No. 1424 of 1974 under 0. 22, Rule 3, Code of Civil procedure on 1. 7. 1974 praying to implead himself as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff alleging that though his father had left other heirs, by virtue of the will executed by his father on 19. 8. 1970, he was the sole legatee, and he should be impleaded as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff. His claim was resisted by the revision petitioners, who are defendants 3 to 6 in the suit, and other defendants. After enquiry, the court below had allowed the petition. Aggrieved by that order, defendants 3 to 6 have come forward with this revision petition.

(3.) I have to consider the next submission made by mr. S. P. Subramaniam, learned counsel for the petitioner. The claim of the respondent that he is one of the sons of the deceased is not in dispute. According to the revision petitioners, the deceased had left his junior widow, 5 more sons and three daughters apart from the respondent, and so without impleading them, the order of the court below is not correct.