Smt. Mahalakshmi and Others vs Sri Rangaswamaiah and Others

B.S. Patil, J.—Petitioners are aggrieved by. the order dated 08.09.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) Doddaballapur in allowing the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC for impleading them as additional defendants No. 9 to 22 in the suit.

The plaintiff - respondent No. 1 herein filed the said application contending inter-alia that he had filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties and the proposed defendants whom he intended to bring on record were the tenants in occupation of the different items of the properties, subject matter of the partition suit.

Plaintiff further urged that the first defendant Sri K.Y. Alli Rangappa, father of the plaintiff was collecting rents from the proposed defendants and utilised the same exclusively for himself and therefore he contended that it was just and necessary to implead the proposed defendants as the plaintiff intended to seek proper directions against them to deposit the rent payable in respect of the various items of the suit schedule properties leased in favour of the proposed defendants. This application was resisted by the defendants and as also by the proposed defendants. The proposed defendants did not deny the fact that they were the tenants inducted by the first defendants in the suit schedule properties. However, they contended that they were neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit for the partition.

The first defendant on his part contended that the property let out is self acquired property and therefore addition of other defendants who are the tenants under him was unnecessary.

The trial court has examined the matter in detail and has come to the conclusion that since the grievance of the plaintiff was that the suit schedule properties being joint family properties, the first defendant was exclusively utilising the rent payable and further as the plaintiff had prayed for mesne profits and defendant No. 1 was net prepared to disclose the amount of rent he was receiving and asserted that it was his self acquired property, the proposed defendants were necessary. It has found that in case the plaintiff succeeds the effective relief with regard to the mesne profits could be awarded and for that purpose the proposed defendants were necessary to be added. Accordingly the application is allowed.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record. I find that though for the purpose of effecting the division of the suit schedule properties which are asserted as joint family properties by the plaintiff the presence of tenants may not be necessary, the fact remains that the first defendant is being exclusively receiving the rents payable by the tenants and he is not disclosing the amount of rent paid towards the lease of the suit schedule properties. The prayer in the suit is also for grant of mesne profits. In such circumstances it cannot be said that impleading the tenants in occupation of the suit schedule properties is apparently illegal or suffered from error of jurisdiction to interfere in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.