In partition suits, all necessary parties must be joined to avoid affecting their rights; amendments reflecting subsequent events are permissible without changing the nature of the suit.

ORDER :

PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and learned counsel for the respondent No.1/defendant No.1.

2. Both the matters are taken up together with consent of both the learned counsels, for disposal.

3. The parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. Both these petitions are preferred by the plaintiff before the Trial Court.

4. The petitioner/plaintiff is aggrieved by the impugned order passed on I.A.No.7 and I.A.No.8, by virtue of a common order dated 23.04.2025. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants, seeking partition, separate possession and for other consequential reliefs, so far as it relates to the suit schedule properties.

5. When the matter was at the stage of recording of evidence of defendants, at that time, these two applications came to be filed by the plaintiff. I.A.No.7 is filed under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to implead the proposed defendant No.6, namely, Smt. Rahath S.K., W/o. Noorulla Khan, D/o. Syed Khadar.

6. I.A.No.8 came to be filed for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking to incorporate certain proposed amendments to the plaint and also seeking for additional reliefs in the prayer.

7. On consideration of these two applications, the Trial Court did not find favour with the plaintiff on both the applications and accordingly dismissed both the applications by virtue of the interim order.

8. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff that the Trial Court has committed a serious error, irregularity and illegality in not considering the relevant averments made in both the applications for impleading the proposed defendant No.6 and to carry out amendment to the plaint by virtue of the proposed amendment that is sought for in the application.

8.1. It is the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff that the impugned order is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the applications deserve to be allowed. It is further contended that the Trial Court has failed to take note that the first defendant transferred the entire rights in favour of his daughter by disregarding the rights and shares of the plaintiff in respect of the properties which are the subject matter in the suit. That is also done during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the application for impleading the proposed defendant No.6, who is the beneficiary of the 'D' schedule property by way of a Gift Deed from defendant No.1, which is admitted by the defendant No.1. It is also a fact that the electricity bill and other documents are standing in the name of the proposed defendant No.6 and that item No. 'D' property belongs to proposed defendant No.6 by way of a registered document and hence proposed defendant No.6 would be a proper and necessary party to the suit, as item No. 'D' is a property that is owned by proposed defendant No.6. Therefore, it would be proper and appropriate to implead proposed defendant No.6 as she claims to be the owner of item No. 'D' of the suit schedule property by virtue of a Gift Deed entered into by defendant No.1 in her favour, who is none other than his daughter.

9. In the other application filed for amendment (I.A.No.8), the plaintiff has sought for incorporation of certain amendments in view of the Gift Deed entered into in the name of the proposed defendant No.6 and in view of the Gift Deed made in favour of proposed defendant No.6 and inclu