M SESHIREDDY Vs. V SUBBA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 16-8-1993 passed in LA. No.680/93 in O.S. No.144 of 1986 on the file of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, dismissing the implead petition filed under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. While the plaintiff is the 1st petitioner, the 2nd petitioner is the proposed plaintiff No.2.

(2.) The 2nd petitioner had instituted a suit representing the plaintiff as a general power of attorney. The plaintiff, Modugula Sheshireddy, is the natural son of the proposed second plaintiff. A suit was filed on his behalf seeking the relief of possession and profits of the suit schedule properties on the premise that Modugula Sheshireddi was the adopted son of M. Subba Reddy and that the adoption took place in the year 1973 and that Subbareddi died in the year 1976 while his wife predeceased him; that the properties were inherited by late Subbareddi through his uncle as his uncle's daughter, M. Lakshmidevamma died intestate; that as contemplated under Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, it reverted back to his heirs and that is how M. Sheshi Reddy, as the adopted son of Subbareddi had succeeded to the properties and was entitled to the relief sought for. The 1st defendant had been contesting the suit on the ground that Lakshmidevamma (his wife) had executed a Will dated 2-11-1968 bequeathing the properties to him.

(3.) Later, additional written statement was filed by the 11th defendant stating that he came to know that Subba Reddy had executed registered Will dated 4-3-1975 bequeathing all his properties to M. Satyanarayana Reddy, the 2nd petitioner herein. In view of the said additional written statement, the 2nd petitioner filed an application under Order I, Rule 10(1) of CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking his impleadment on the ground that even if the Will dated 2-11-1968 said to have been executed by Lakshmidevamma in favour of the 1st defendant is upheld, if not the 1st plaintiff, he gets the rights over the schedule lands by virtue of the subsequent Will dated 4-3-1975 executed by M. Subba Reddy, This application was resisted by the defendants and the contention raised by the defendants that impleadment petition cannot be allowed was upheld by the lower Court. Hence, this revision.