SANGAPPA Vs. CHANNABASAMMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hungund on IA Nos. 19 and 22 in OS No. 133/1996 dated 19.12.2014 and 17.04.2015 respectively.

(2.) I have heard the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

(3.) IA No. 19 is filed by the plaintiff under Order -1 Rule -10 read with 151 of CPC and the IA No. 22 is filed under Order -6, Rule -17 of CPC by the plaintiff seeking indulgence of the Court to permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint by incorporating Survey No. 10/3 -A to the suit schedule property. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the said application that, earlier, the plaintiff was knowing only about a property in Survey No. 10/3B belonging to the family. Only after filing of the written statement by the defendants stating that there is one more property to the family, she came to know about this property. Therefore, after ascertaining that Survey No. 10/3A measuring 2 acres 13 guntas is also the property belonging to the family, she sought that property to be impleaded to the suit property though it was not earlier included. Consequently, an application under Order -6 Rule 17 is filed. The IA under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC is filed stating that the said property was sold in favour of the proposed defendant under a sale deed by defendant No. 3 Sathawwa. The purchaser of the said property is also a necessary party for proper adjudication of the rights of the parties. Therefore, the plaintiff has sought for impleading the petitioner as defendant No. 9. After considering the material on record, the Court felt that the said property and the proposed defendants are absolutely necessary for proper adjudication of the rights of the parties. The proposed defendant has taken up the contention that the suit is barred by limitation so far as this property is concerned. It goes without saying that, whether the properties are joint family properties, whether the suit is barred by time all these factors have to be decided by the Court after a full dressed trial. In order to set all the disputes between the parties, all the necessary parties and properties shall be there in the suit. Therefore, when it is shown to the Court the said property claimed to be joint family property and the plaintiff claims share in the property as joint family property whether the sale of the said property binds the share of the plaintiff also to be thrashed out during the trial. Hence, order impugned does not suffer from any illegality.