Telangana High Court
CRP/4775/2008 of Smt. Munnabai Vs Tuljaram Singh on 31 December 2009
SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 4775 of 2008 O r d e r: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 25.08.2008, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 657 of 2007 in O.S. No. 32 of 1991, filed by the petitioner praying to implead
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANAC.R.P. No. 4775 of 2008
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O r d e r:
This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 25.08.2008,passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy,dismissing the application in I.A. No. 657 of 2007 in O.S. No. 32 of 1991, filed by the petitioner praying to implead him as party-defendant No. 22 in the suit.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thepetitioner’s maternal grandmother, viz., Munna Bai was the absoluteowner of the suit lands, and upon her demise, her mother , viz., HeeraBai succeeded, who died intestate leaving behind her and her fourbrothers, namely the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 3. During thependency of the suit, defendant No.2 died issueless. On account of hisdeath, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioneris entitled to 1/4[th] share in the lands, which are not partitioned bymetes and bounds. Since the plaintiff with a view to make wrongfulgain, has filed the suit by showing defendant Nos. 1 to 3 as the onlylegal heirs of her mother, and since the petitioner being one of thelegal heirs is entitled to share in the property, she is proper andnecessary party, for adjudication of the issues involved in the suit, andtherefore, the petitioner filed the present application praying to impleadher party-defendant to the suit, but the Court below has committed anerror in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner praying toimplead her as one of the party-defendants to the suit. Hence, heprayed that the order under revision be set aside and the C.R.P. beallowed and the petitioner be impleaded as one of the party-defendantto the suit.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submitted that the petitioner has not filed any material to showthat Munna Bai, their grandmother was the owner of the suit lands andthat upon her demise, her daughter, Heera Bai succeeded to thesame. That the petitioner has not stated as to how Munna Baiacquired the suit schedule property, and that prior to 1956 female heirshad no right to succeed to the properties intestate and that the presentapplication is filed when the suit is coming up for arguments. Thepetitioner is neither a proper nor a necessary party, and she filed the present application at the instance of the other defendants, and assuch, the Court below has rightly dismissed the application, filedseeking her impleadment as one of the party-defendants in the suit,and prayed that the C.R.P. be dismissed.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedcounsel for the respondent-plaintiff and perused the order underrevision.
The petitioner though claimed that she is the grand daughter oflate Munna Bai, and that after her death, her mother succeeded to theproperty, who died intestate, and that she being one of her legal heirs,is entitled to share in the property, and therefore, she being a properand necessary party, should be implead as one of the party-defendantto the suit, the fact remains, the petitioner has not furnished any detailsas to when her grandmother Munna Bai and her mother Heera Baidied, whether prior to coming into the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 orsubsequent thereto. This apart, the petitioner filed the presentapplication after lapse of nearly 17 years and that too when the suit iscoming up for arguments. Be that as it may, for her impleadment asone of the party-defendant, must satisfy the Court that she is a properand necessary party, and that that without her presence the issuesinvolved in the suit cannot be properly adjudicated. The petitionerhaving not placed any material to show that she is a proper andnecessary party, much less any material to show that she is one of thelegal heirs of the person through whom she is claiming a right in theproperty, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the Courtbelow refusing to permit her to be impleaded as one of the party-defendant to the suit proceedings.
In the above view of the matter, I find no reason whatsoever tointerfere with the order under revision in exercise of supervisoryjurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.The C.R.P. is devoid of merit, and the same is accordinglydismissed. No costs.
Dated: December, 2009.KSR
_________________
N.V. RAMANA, J.