The first defendant in the suit is the revision petitioner herein. The suit is filed for partition in respect of the suit property and other consequential relief. The plaintiff and the first defendant are brothers. They claimed right over the property of their father and mother. At the time of filing the plaint, the plaintiff has contended that, his parents have four children viz., the plaintiff, first defendant and daughters Chithra and Pushpa.
2.It is contended in the plaint that the daughters have relinquished their share of the suit property in favour of the brothers, who are the plaintiff and the first defendant. In the written statement of the first defendant the contention of the plaintiff that the sisters relinquished their right orally is disputed. In the said circumstances, the plaintiff has taken out an application to implead said Naveen S/o.Chithra and Pushpa as defendants.
3.The Trial Court, after considering the pleadings of the respective parties have allowed the applications to implead Naveen and Chithra as defendants 13 and 14. Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the present revision petition is filed on the ground that the proposed defendants were never in the joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and therefore, impleading them as a party of the proceedings is erroneous, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice.
4.It is also contended by the revision petitioner that the father of the plaintiff and the first defendant and the proposed parties, died on 14.04.1989 before the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, the daughters, namely, Chithra and Pushpa are not entitled for any legal right over the suit property and when they are not entitled any share in the property, they are not necessary parties. Therefore, the order of the Trial Court allowing the impleading petition is erroneous and liable to be set aside.
5.This Court, on giving anxious consideration to the said pleadings hold that the contention of the revision petitioner is not sustainable in law and there is no error in the order passed by the Trial Court allowing the impleading petitions.
6. The case of the plaintiff herein is that the said Ramanathan left behind him two daughters and they relinquished their right in favour of the plaintiff and the first defendant. The revision petitioner herein admits that the said Ramanathan had two daughters but deny the averment of oral relinquish of their right in favour of the plaintiff and the first defendant. In such circumstances as heirs of Ramanathan they both are necessary party to the suit and the trial court has rightly allowed the application taken out by the plaintiff. This Court sees no error in the order of the Trial Court.
7.Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
To The Additional District Judge No.2, Tutucorin..