G KAMALAM Vs. DAIVANAI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition arises out of the Order dated 04. 07. 2003 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast track Court, Salem in I. A. No. 190 of 2003 in O. S. No. 144 of 2002, allowing the application filed under Order I Rule 10 (2) C. P. C ordering impleading of the Second Wife of the Defendant and also the Son and Daughter through the second Wife as Defendants in the Suit O. S. No. 144 of 2002. The Plaintiffs are the Revision Petitioners.

(2.) THE Parties are related as under:-

(3.) RESISTING the Application, the Plaintiffs have filed the Counter Statement denying lawful marriage of Daivanai Ammal with the Defendant. According to the plaintiffs, the second marraige dated 11. 03. 1956 is alleged to have been taken place after coming into existence of Hindu Marriage act ,195 5. Even if the second marriage is true, the proposed parties cannot claim any share in the Suit Properties as of legal right. The proposed parties are strangers to the family and are not entitled to claim any share from the ancestral property of the Plaintiffs. Hence, in the suit for Partition, the proposed parties are not necessary parties. The application has been filed only to drag on the proceedings at the instigation of the Defendant.