KATHIJAMMAL @ MAIMOONAMMAL Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order made in I.A.No.499 of 2017 in O.S.No.153 of 2016 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi, Pudukottai District, dated 14.07.2017.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. The case of the petitioner is that respondents 7 and 8 herein filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, to implead themselves as defendants 7 and 8 in the suit to proceed further, claiming that they are the legal heirs of their grandfather Mohamed Hanifa and their father Amir Sultan. According to them, the said Mohamed Hanifa had two wives namely, Maimoonammal and Umma Habiba. The revision petitioner/plaintiff claims to be the daughter of Umma Habiba and she filed the suit against the defendants for declaration and permanent injunction. The defendants are Government officials and they were set exparte and when the suit was posted for exparte evidence, the respondents 7 and 8 herein/proposed defendants filed the present interlocutory application seeking to implead themselves as defendants 7 and 8 claiming themselves to be the legal heirs of Mohamed Hanifa and the petitioner has intentionally hidden the legal heirs of the said Mohamed Hanifa and Maimoonammal who are the necessary parties to the suit.

(3.) The revision petitioner filed counter contending that she does not know the proposed defendants and she is the only legal heir of her father Mohamed Hanifa and her mother namely, Umma Habiba is the only wife of Mohamed Hanifa. She further contended that there are around 20 persons living in the name of Amir Sultan in the village and the proposed defendants created documents that they are the legal heirs of the said Mohamed Hanifa and they are not connected with the suit proceedings and therefore, they are not necessary parties to the suit for proper and final adjudication.