MADADI NARASIMHA REDDY Vs. MADADI RAMACHANDRA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition give rise to a short question of law, viz., s whether a third party can be added as a defendant under Order 1, rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, after a preliminary dercee is passed in a partition suit.

(2.) The relevant facts for appreciating the question involved, may briefly be stated. The 1st respondent filed O.S. No. 99 of 1971 against the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein for partition of the plaint-schedule properties between himself and the two defendants. The 1st respondent (plaintiff) and the 3rd respondent (2nd defendant) are the sons of the 2nd respondent (1st defendant) by his second wife. Subsequently a consent preliminary decree was passed in the suit. The petitioner, who is the eldest son of the 1st defendant by his first wife and the step-brother of the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant, filed I.A. No. 85 of 1972 to implead him as one of the defendants in the said suit, contending that his step-brothers and father conspired and got filed the suit behind his back to defraud him and that he has interest in all or some of the suit properties. The Court below dismissed the application holding that the petitioner did not state in his affidavit the interest he had in the plaint-schedule properties and that the earlier partition pleaded by the defendants-respondents is probable. Hence this revision.

(3.) I have perused the affidavit in the I.A. and it is not correct to state that the petitioner has not stated about his interest in the plaint-schedule properties. He has averred in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that he has interest in all or some of the properties and that his step-brothers and father have conspired to defraud him and obtained the consent preliminary decree to the detriment of his interests and as such he must be impleaded as a party. Having regard to the fact that he is one of the sons of the 1st defendant and the step-brother of the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant, and to the other averments made in the petition to implead, it must be said that he is a necessary party to the suit for adjudicating all the questions involved.