B. Manohar, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS are the applicants in OS No. 2428/2006 on the file of the XXIV Additional City Civil Judge and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH No. 6). Being aggrieved by the order dated 8th December, 2014 dismissing the application -I.A. No. 16 filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. by the proposed applicants, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
(2.) THE 1st respondent herein filed the suit seeking, for declaration declaring that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. The contesting defendants filed written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the issues. The parties have led evidence. Further, partial decree was passed in the suit in view of the compromise petition filed by defendants No. 1 to 6 and 8. The said decree was challenged by the 7th defendant in RFA No. 630/2012. This Court had disposed off the appeal with a direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the same within a period of six months and the parties to maintain status regarding the nature of the properties as it exists. After disposal of the said appeal, the applicants filed I.A. No. 16 to come on record as defendants No. 9 and 10 contending that while partitioning the joint family properties, a condition has been imposed that the family members cannot alienate the joint family properties to the third party. The applicants also have right over the properties and they can object for alienation of the properties on the basis of a registered partition deed entered into in the year 1955 and sought for allowing I.A. No. 16. The plaintiff filed objections to the said application contending that the applicants cannot be allowed to come on record. At the instance of other family members, who have already entered into compromise with the plaintiff, they set up these applicants to come on record to object for passing of the decree and sought for dismissal of I.A. No. 16. The Trial Court after considering the matter in detail and taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter rejected the application holding that the applicants are not necessary and proper parties for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. The applicants claimed their interest on the basis of the partition deed of the year 1955. Hence, the applicants have not made out any case to implead them as defendants No. 9 and 10 in the suit. The Trial Court also held that I.A. No. 16 is hit by Section 4 of Partition Act. Being aggrieved by the order impugned, the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the order impugned and other relevant records.;