ARAVIND KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Sri G.K. Bhat, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Bharath Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. An application filed by the writ petitioner in O.S. No. 2403 of 2013, which is a suit instituted by the respondent herein for ejectment of Smt. Uma Nagaraj, the petitioner herein, having been rejected, is before this Court, contending inter-alia that application filed by the petitioner under Order I, Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to implead the erstwhile owner of the suit property Smt. Vasantha, as she was the necessary and proper party to the suit in question has been erroneously rejected.

3. Sri G.K. Bhat, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that Trial Court committed an error in rejecting the application without considering the fact that there was no locus standi for the plaintiff-respondent herein to institute the suit in question, inasmuch as, there is no tenancy between respondent and petitioner. It is also contended that Smt. Vasantha under whom the respondent-plaintiff claims to have acquired title is said to have executed a sale deed dated 20.6.2012 in favour of respondent is surrounded with suspicion and the vendor Smt. Vasantha had executed the said sale deed through the power of attorney holder and at the same time, she has also affixed her signature to the sale deed as a witness and as such, it was inadmissible and Trial Court ought to have taken note of the said fact to consider the claim of the petitioner, but has rejected the application in question erroneously. It was also contended that said Smt. Vasantha is a necessary and proper party to the suit and as such, her presence would have a direct bearing on the claim of the writ petitioner before the Trial Court and dismissal of said application is erroneous. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in T. Ratna Pandyan vs. P. Subramanyam Chetty, 1997 (2) Kar. L.J. 365.

4. Per contra, Sri Bharath Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff would support the impugned order and would contend that the present petitioner had also admitted in the earlier proceedings about the tenancy between herself and Smt. Vasantha, who is the vendor of the respondent-plaintiff and as such, she is now estopped from contending contrary to the same and Trial Court has rightly taken note of these facts and dismissed the application. Hence, he prays for rejection of the writ petition. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon two decisions in the case of Sunil Kumar Bose vs. Jagabandhu Dhang, AIR 2004 Cal. 13 and Mrs. Yashoda Raju vs. A. Kuselan, AIR 2004 Mad. 106.

5. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, it would disclose that respondent herein had instituted a suit in O.S. No. 2354 of 2013 seeking relief of judgment and decree of eviction against Smt. Uma Nagaraj (deceased petitioner) to direct the defendant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit property. It is also contended in the suit that plaintiff has purchased the suit property under a sale deed dated 20.6.2012 from Smt. Vasantha. Records would also disclose that she (Smt. Vasantha) had purchased the suit property on 20.8.1993 and had inducted the present petitioner into the suit property. It was the contention of Smt. Vasantha that Smt. Uma Nagaraj was a licencee under her and on expiry of licence period, she did not vacate and as such, she instituted a suit in O.S. No. 6570 of 2002 for the relief of mandatory injunction to direct the defendant to remove herself from the suit premises. The said suit after contest, came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 15.7.2009 Annexure-R3. In the said suit, the deceased writ petitioner had appeared and filed her written statement and at paragraph 2 of her written statement, she had stated to the following effect:

"2. Regarding para 3 of the plaint, the defendant