CHAVA LAKSHMIDEVAMMA Vs. CHAVA NAGAYYA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff -petitioner seeks to set aside in revision the order of the learned District Munsiff of Guntur directing under Order 1, Rule 10 that the fourth defendant, who had applied there for, be impleaded as a party defendant to the suit.

(2.) THE plaintiff laid the suit in the first instance against the three defendants, her deceased husband's brothers. It was common ground that defendants 1 to 3 were divided in status from the plaintiff's husband. The plaintiff claimed that on the death of her husband she succeeded to her husband's properties. After averring in paragraph (5) of the plaint that the defendants threatened to interfere with her possession, and that it

(3.) IT was not the case of any one that the fourth defendant was a necessary party to the suit as laid by the plaintiff within the meaning of Order 1, Rule 10. Though there was no specific finding to that effect in the order of the learned District Munsiff, it should be obvious that it was on the ground that the fourth defendant was a proper party that the learned District Munsiff ordered that the fourth defendant be added as a party defendant. The summary of the pleadings set out above should by itself suffice to uphold that implied finding of the learned District Munsiff. Since, however, the petition was argued at considerable length by both parties I shall deal with the contentions advanced during arguments.