SWAYAMPRAKASAM ALIAS CHIDAMBARANATHAN Vs. R. VIJAYARANGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was the plaintiff in a suit for partition, O.S. No. 40 of 1941, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tiruchirapalli, filed by his mother Anjalai Ayal as his next friend. His father Raju Padayachi was the first defendant in the suit and one Rathnam Ayal, another wife of the Raju Padayachi, was impleaded as the second defendant in the suit. The other defendants were the alienees from the first defendant. The first defendant remained ex parte in the suit. Some of the debts incurred by the first defendant were attacked in the suit and in support of the said plea, it was urged that he was leading an immoral life by keeping a concubine by name Marudambal through whom he had a son and two daughters. The alienations made by the first defendant were held to be not binding on the petitioner herein and he got a preliminary decree for his half share in the suit properties on 15th December, 1942 and the final decree proceedings are pending. One Vijayarangam the son of the said Marudambal, filed I.A. No. 404 of 1967, on the file of the lower Court, under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, to implead him as the 25th defendant in the suit on the ground that he is entitled to one third share in the suit properties as the legitimate son of the petitioner's father Raju Padayachi. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge allowed the petition. Hence the plaintiff -petitioner has filed this revision petition.

(2.) THE respondent Vijayarangam filed Exhibits A -1 and A -2 to show that in 1962 and 1963 he has joined in executing sale -deeds along with Raju Padayachi and the petitioner herein and that in these documents to which the petitioner herein was a party, he has been described as the son, of Raju Padayachi. The petitioner herein, on the other hand, filed Exhibit B -1 to show that in 1943 he and his father Raju Padayachi alone sold some family properties. The question whether the respondent Vijayarangam is a legitimate son of Raju Padayachi has to be decided in the suit. It is true that as the respondent Vijayarangam was not a party to the suit O.S. No. 40 of 1941, on the file of the lower Court, the decree therein will not bind him and it is open to him to file a separate suit to establish his rights. But the question for consideration in this petition is whether as contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the lower Court has no jurisdiction to impleaded the respondent Vijayarangam as a party to the partition suit after the preliminary decree had been passed in this suit as early as 15th December, 1942.

(3.) ORDER 1, Rule 10(2) Civil Procedure Code, gives jurisdiction to the Court to order that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added at any stage of the proceedings. The proceedings in a suit for partition cannot come to an end till the final decree is passed and hence an order directing a party to be added under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, may be made in a suit for partition before it is actually terminated by the passing of the final decree.