Necessary parties must be included in legal proceedings; amendments to pleadings allowed to ensure fair adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

R.DEVDAS, J.

These two regular first appeals arise out of the Judgment and Decree dated 22.01.2020 passed in O.S. No.186/2013 on the file the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad (for short, ‘the trial Court’). Therefore, both these appeals are clubbed, heard together and are disposed of by this common Judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties herein shall be referred to in terms of their rankings before the trial Court.

3. As per the description and the genealogy tree given by the plaintiff-Smt.Shakuntala, the propositus of the family is Sri Parayya Channayya Pujar, who had two sons by name Irayya and Gurusiddayya. Irayya and his wife-Gangavva had four children, while Gurusiddayya had three children including the plaintiff-Shakuntala. The plaintiff sought for 1/4^th share in all the suit schedule properties. It is not in dispute that initially only those family members as narrated hereinabove were parties to the suit. However, subsequently by way of two impleading applications defendants No.5 to 28 were impleaded. However, we should notice that although, the said parties were subsequently impleaded in the suit, there is no averments found in the amended plaint as to how those parties were necessary to these proceedings and what is the reason for impleading them, and there is no specific prayer as against defendants No.5 to 28, who were subsequently impleaded.

4. Nevertheless, it is the contention of learned counsel for the appellants in RFA No.100441/2023, which is filed by defendants No.10, 11 and 12 that insofar as three items of the suit Schedule-A properties are concerned, their names are reflected in the RTC along with the family members of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 4.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants in RFA.no.100441/2023 contended that there being no pleadings in the suit as against defendants no.5 to 28 and while admittedly they are not family members of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 4 and there being no specific prayer regarding defendants No.5 to 28, the suit had to be rejected outright. Moreover, it is submitted that no notice was served on the appellants herein and they had no occasion to contest the suit.

6. Insofar as the appellant in RFA No.100113/2022, which is filed by defendant No.14. It is contended that the appellant/defendant no.14 is the first son of Irayya and Gangavva and no notice was served on defendant No.14. Moreover, it is submitted that when the genealogical tree presented by the plaintiff clearly shows that the Parayya had two sons namely Irayya and Gurusiddayya, on partition, half of the share in the suit schedule properties will go to Irayya and other half will go to Gurusiddayya and the plaintiff could claim share only in respect that part of the share which falls to Gurusiddaya and therefore, the trial Court has erred in decreeing the suit granting 1/4^th share to the plaintiff in all the suit schedule properties. It is contended that the plaintiff is entitled, if at all, only for 1/4^th share out of the share which falls to Gurusiddayya, father of the plaintiff.

7. At this juncture, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the matter may require re-consideration while affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned including defendants no.5 to 28. Learned counsel submits that the matter may be remanded permitting the plaintiff to file an amendment application to amend the plaint to show cause of action insofar as defendants No.5 to 28 are concerned, while also making additional prayer, if required seeking declaration regarding the rights of the defendants No.5 to 28. Insofar as the suit schedule