JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has preferred this petition being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Order dated 12.8.2016 passed by learned 17th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat below Exh-17 in Regular Civil Suit No.1365 of 2015 whereby the application of the petitioner for joining her as a party defendant in the Suit has been rejected by the trial Court.

2. The brief facts of the matter is that the plaintiff Dakshaben has filed the aforesaid suit against 5 defendants for declaration as to her right in the suit property and for getting her share in the suit property and for injunction against the 5 defendants, which includes her father. During pendency of the suit, the applicant herein has filed application for joining herself as a party respondent on the various grounds, at Exh-17. It is contended by the petitioner herein that she has sought for the share in the property of Jagjivanbhai Lallubhai, who has died on 3.7.1972 in the intestate condition. According to the petitioner, she is daughter of Jagjivanbhai Lallubhai and Jagjivanbhai had 2 wives out of which first wife Dhanuben is mother of the petitioner. According to her version, the plaintiff Dakshaben is the daughter of Mansukhbhai Jagjivanbhai who is real brother of the petitioner Manjulaben born from the wedlock of the Dhanuben and Jagjivanbhai. It is contended that the plaintiff has only made the parties, who are the heirs of Mansukhbhai and all the suit properties are in the name of Jagjivanbhai and the same are shown in the revenue record, as properties of late Shri Jagjivanbhai. According to her version, she has right in the properties as it is not divided. It is also contended that the reference of the revenue entries No.3907 and 3912, as made in the plaint, are false and illegal. It is also contended that the mutation entry has been concealed from other heirs and there is fraud committed for making those entries in revenue record. It is contended that she will take necessary legal proceedings thereof. She has also contended that as she has a right in the properties of the deceased Jagjivanbhai, she will take necessary recourse of law.

2.1 It is also contended in the application that her brothers have concealed the fact that the present petitioner is also one of the heirs of the deceased and thus they have tried to frustrate the right of the petitioner. It is also contended that the properties shown in the plaint is not sole ownership of Mansukhbhai but it's the ancestral properties and, therefore, the petitioner is a necessary party having right in the Suit properties. It is her contention that properties being ancestral properties and as no proper partition was made, and as she has the right to be heard, she has applied for joining her as defendant no.6 in the Suit, which has been rejected by the trial Court by impugned order.

2.2 It is also contended by the petitioner herein that large number of properties have been left behind by Jagjivanbhai, which has to be appropriately partitioned in view of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. It is also contended that late Shri Jagjivanbhai had not executed will and, therefore, no individual can claim as sole property right and cannot exclude all other legal heirs. It is also alleged that Mansukhbhai Jagjivanbahi i.e. respondent no.2 herein, somehow at the relevant point of time, was successful in mutating his name in the suit properties, to the exclusion of others. It is also contended that in the revenue proceedings, all the legal heirs including herself were never served with any Notice under Section 135(D) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. It is also contended that contrary to well settled principles and against weight of evidence on record, the name of respondent no.2 is only reflected in respect of the said properties. It is also contended that somehow respondent no.1 vide Notarised document dated 2.4.2004 however malafidely tried to distribute the said properties in the name of his 3 sons i.e. responde