SATISH VISHANJI FATNANI Vs. MOHANLAL DUNGARMAL FUTNANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 28-3-1985 of Sengottuvelan, J. in Application No.211 of 1985 in T.O.S.No.19 of 1984, dismissing the same. The said application had been filed by the appellant herein to implead himself as second respondent in T.O.S.No.19 of 1984 and for directing the plaintiff to amend the plaint accordingly.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the said application by the appellant may briefly be noted: One Dungarmal Bachumal Futnani died on 1st April, 1983, leaving a will and a codicil dated 28th June, 1982 and 29th March, 1983 respectively. He has left behind him two sons and eight daughters. The sons are Mohanlal D.Futnani and Vishanji Futnani. The wife of the deceased predeceased him. The first respondent herein, Mohanlal D. Futnani filed O.P.No.262 of 1984 for the issue of a probate in respect of the will claiming to be the named executor under the will. In the said O.P.No.262 of 1984 the son of the first respondent, viz., the second respondent herein, also figured as the second petitioner. The other son of the testator viz., the third respondent herein, filed a caveat and disputed the truth and genuineness of the will. Hence, the above said O.P. was converted into T.O.S.No.19 of 1984 The properties dealt with by the said will and codicil of the deceased are situate in Madras, Bombay and Calcutta, known as “Futnani Chambers”. The appellant herein, as already stated, filed Application No.211 of 1985 for impleading himself as second respondent in T.O.S.No.19 of 1984 on the ground that he is a necessary party to the said T.O.S. In the affidavit filed in support of his application, he has stated the following two grounds to. substantiate his contention that he is a necessary party to the suit:

(3.) Before us, Mr. V.P.Raman, the learned counsel for the appellant puts foward the following three grounds as entitling the appellant to implead himself as a party-defendant in the T.O.S.: -