The court allows the impleadment of parties in partition suits when they provide sufficient evidence of ownership despite prior non-production of documents.

ORDER :

PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.

This matter is taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties appearing before this Court. The petitioners herein are the impleading applicants in OS.No.41/2021 filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for the relief of partition and separate possession and other consequential reliefs.

2. Petitioners/impleading applicants filed an application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC to implead them as defendant Nos.15 to 19 in the suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs/respondents in O.S.NO.41/2021 before the Senior Civil Judge, JMFC, Nanjangud. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners/impleading applicants that the suit schedule item No.2 situated in Survey No.16 of Kaggalur Village, Hullahalli, Hobli, Nanjangudu Taluk which measures totally to an extent of 5 acres 15 guntas, was originally owned by one Sri.Dasashetty. The said land to an entire extent of 5 acres 15 guntas was sold to one Sri.Karigowda S/o Giddegowda on 11.11.1932. In turn, out of the said 5 acres, 3 acres of land came to be sold in favour of one Dhyavagowda S/o Bettegowda by executing a registered sale deed on 13.12.1945, the said Dhyavagowda S/o Bettegowda further sold the said 3 acres to the father of petitioner No.5, Sri. Kullappa, through a registered sale deed dated 27.06.1968. Copies of the sale deeds of the year 1932, 1945 and 1968 are produced along with this petition.

3. It is further contended that the petitioners are the lawful owners of the property to an extent of 3 acres which has been inherited from Sri.Kullappa, who had purchased the property from Sri.Karigowda S/o Giddegowda vide registered sale deed dated 27.06.1968.

4. The respondents/plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition in item No.2 in Sy.No.16; 5 acres 15 guntas is included in the schedule, out of which 3 acres is owned by the petitioners, who are the impleading applicants who sought to implead themselves in the trial Court in the original suit. The trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that the petitioners/impleading applicants have not produced materials to show that they are the owners or any title documents or RTC records or revenue records to substantiate their contentions in the application for impleadment.

5. It is no doubt true that item No.2 in Sy.No.16, property is shown as 5 acres 15 guntas in the said survey number. But petitioners have not mentioned or shown or produced any document of title or RTC or revenue records to substantiate their claim. To show and satisfy the Court as to how and why they are a proper and necessary party in the suit proceedings. Therefore, for non-production of these documents, the application came to be rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners/impleading applicants contends that there is a mistake committed by the petitioners/impleading applicants before the trial Court in non-production of these documents to establish that they are the absolute owners of the property to an extent of 3 acres, which is shown as item No.2 out of the 5 acres 15 guntas. Therefore, when the petitioner's/impleading applicant's properties are included in the suit, the petitioners/impleading applicants are proper and necessary parties to the proceedings. But fairly, he admits that these documents were not placed before the trial Court. Therefore in view of the production of these documents before this Court, he seeks impleadment of the petitioners/impleading applicants before the trial Court and being open to the respondents/plaintiffs to file the objections and contest the matter on merits and permit the petitioners herein to contest their case so far as it relates to