Sri. Shivanna vs Sri Ramaiah, Sri. G.M. Hanumantharayappa, The Special Land Acquisition Officer-1 and Sri. H. Nataraju

H. Billappa, J.—In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question, the order dated 25-6-2013 passed by the trial court in O.S. No. 1506/2011 on I.A. filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. vide Annexure-E. By the impugned order at Annexure-E, the trial court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner to implead the respondent No. 4 as party to the proceedings.

Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Briefly stated the facts are:

The petitioner has filed suit in O.S. No. 1506/2011 for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The second respondent has filed his written statement contending that one Lakkamma and her son Ramaiah i.e., the father of the first respondent have sold the property in favour of the second respondent and in turn the second respondent and fourth respondent divided the property amongst themselves and the suit schedule property has fallen to the share of the fourth respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the application to implead the fourth respondent as party to the proceedings. The trial court by its order dated 25-6-2013 has rejected the application. Therefore this writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the second respondent has contended that the suit schedule property was sold in his favour by one Lakkamma and Ramaiah, the father of the first respondent and thereafter, in the partition between the second and fourth respondent the suit schedule property has fallen to the share of the fourth respondent and therefore, the fourth respondent is a necessary party to the proceedings and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.

As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted that the fourth respondent is not a necessary party to the proceedings and his presence is not required for effective adjudication of the matter and therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference.

There is no representation on behalf of the second respondent.

I find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The suit has been filed by the petitioner for partition and separate possession. The second respondent has contended that the suit schedule property was sold in his favour by one Lakkamma and Ramaiah, the father of the first respondent. In the partition between the second and fourth respondents, the suit schedule property has fallen to the share of the fourth respondent. Therefore, the presence of the fourth respondent is required for effective adjudication of the matter. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the trial court in O.S. No. 1506/11 on I.A. under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. is hereby set aside. I.A. is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to implead the fourth respondent as party to the proceedings.