THAKUR MAHTO Vs. CHIMNI MAHATWAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved of order dated 27.01.2018 passed in Title Appeal No. 19 of 2007 by which their application for impleadment in the pending appeal as party respondents has been rejected.

(2.) Plea raised by the petitioners is that the application for impleadment filed under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC must be decided on the guiding principles whether the applicants are necessary or proper party in the suit and at this stage merits of the claim of the interveners cannot be decided.

(3.) Title Partition Suit No. 13 of 2003 was instituted by Chimni Mahatawain claiming herself daughter of late Lutan Mahto for a preliminary decree for partition of the suit properties to the extent of half share for her in the suit schedule properties. In the partition suit Bipati Devi and Bikkhi Devi were impleaded as defendants. The plaintiff has asserted that the suit scheduled properties were recorded in the name of Loknath Mahto, Gopal Mahto and Tarni Mahto; Loknath Mahto and Gopal Mahto died issueless and Tarni Mahto had two sons Lutan Mahto and Churi Mahto. The petitioners have claimed that Tarni Mahto had two sons-Lutan Mahto and Churi Mahto and two daughters-Ajhola Devi and Munni Devi. The plaintiff claims herself daughter of Lutan Mahto, defendant no. 1 is wife of Churi Mahto and defendant no. 2-Bikkhi Devi is daughter of Churi Mahto. The defendants disputed that the plaintiff is daughter of Lutan Mahto. The genealogical table produced by the plaintiff was also partly disputed. The suit was decreed vide judgment dated 05.07.2007 and a decree was prepared, sealed and signed on 17.07.2007.