BALAWA Vs. KADAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case widow Balawa had filed a suit for an injunction against her own adopted son to restrain him from interfering with her possession with regard to three pieces of land. During the course of the suit, the parties came to a compromise and before a decree could be passed thereon certain reversioners submitted an application stating that they are interested in the suit property as reversioners, and as such they should be impleaded as parties. The lower Court has allowed the petition and ordered that they be made parties. The question for determination in this revision is whether the reversioners are proper and necessary parties.

(2.) THE counsel for the Respondents urges that inasmuch as the compromise petition gives a piece of land to the adopted son as an adopted son, they are bound to be affected after the death of the widow and therefore they are proper and necessary parties to the suit. He further contends that if the widow is deemed to represent the Estate of the deceased any decision or decree against her will be binding on the reversioners. The point at issue therefore, is whether the question of adoption was at issue in the suit and whether any decision thereon is binding on the reversioners. It appears clear to me that the suit of the widow is only for the limited purpose of safeguarding her possession for which every person is entitled in law to go to a court. The fact that the widow in such a suit admits the validity of the adoption of a Defendant would become extraneous to the issue falling for decision in this case and cannot be binding upon the reversioners.

(3.) I agree.