TAI NAGARATNAM Vs. M SULOCHANADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two civil revision petitions arise out of similar but separate orders passed by the lower Court whereby it has dismissed the petitions filed by the petitioners for their impleadment as defendants in O.S.No. 798 of 1980 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada which is at the stage of final decree proceedings. Despite service of notice on respondent No. 1, who is the plaintiff and who obtained a preliminary decree for partition, she has not entered appearance. At the hearing, no one represented respondent No. 1. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) The facts in both the cases are similar. Hence, it will suffice to state in brief the facts in C.R.P. No. 848 of 2012.

(3.) The petitioners claimed that the husband of petitioner No. 1 purchased a part of the suit schedule property from respondent No. 4. During his lifetime, the husband of petitioner No. 1 had constructed a house and the entire family had been living therein. After his death, the petitioners are residing in the said house. On coming to know that a preliminary decree for partition was passed in O.S.No. 798 of 1980 filed by respondent No. 1 against respondent Nos. 2 to 4, the petitioners filed I.A. No. 407 of 2009 for their impleadment in the final decree proceedings. The said application was allowed by the lower Court. The petitioners have similarly filed I.A. No. 270 of 2011 for their impleadment as defendant Nos. 15 to 18 in the suit itself. In support of their application, they have specifically pleaded that despite the fact that late Lakshmipathi Rao had purchased the property from respondent No. 4 in the year 1979 itself and the suit was filed in the year 1980, they were not impleaded as defendants and that the preliminary decree was obtained by fraud and collusion among respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Respondent No. 1 resisted the said application. The lower Court by order dated 12.09.2011 dismissed the I.A. As noted above, similar application filed by the petitioners in C.R.P.No. 849 of 2012 was also dismissed.