SANATAN DAS Vs. AHALYA DEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises out of an order rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil P. C. to be impleaded as a party in the suit.

(2.) Opposite party No. 1 instituted a suit for partition claiming that the property had been divided amongst the other members of the family without her knowledge and excluding her. She alleged that the family originally consisted of two branches--one of Bholanath and the other of Binod. Bholanath died in 1971 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 as his heirs. Binod in his lifetime sold away his properties and died without any heir.

(3.) During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil P. C. to be impleaded as a party claiming that he was the adopted son of Binod and he was a necessary party to the suit and further, having regard to the nature of the suit and the allegations made, he ought to have been joined and his presence was necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.