BHIMANAGOWD Vs. ESWARAGOWD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit is in the nature of an administration suit and asks for accounts to be taken of the deceased s estate and to administer it in accordance with his Will. In the administration properties will no doubt be partitioned and given to various persons entitled. The 5th defendant is one of those persons so entitled and though he was originally arraigned as a defendant, I see no objection to his being made a plaintiff to claim his share. It is argued that as the original plaintiff had no right to institute the suit, this suit would have been dismissed and that the Court has no jurisdiction to add a new plaintiff as it has done. The question whether the original plaintiff has a right or not, has not been found yet. It is a matter of controversy between the parties. But even if we assume for argument that he would ultimately be found to have no interest, that is no bar to adding a new plaintiff. Vide Krishna. Boi v. Collector and Government Agent, Tanjore 30 M. 419 : 2 M.L.T. 447. It was next argued that no bona fide mistake is found by the trial Judge to apply Order I, Rule 10, of the Code of Civil Procedure. This being, however, an administration suit, as I have already pointed out, I do not think it is necessary to find it expressly. The 5th defendant is entitled to have the estate administered himself.

(2.) There is no ground for interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) The petition is dismissed with costs.