Back
K.MURALI SHANKAR
P. K. Abdul Khadar – Appellant
Versus
P. A. Jannath Ganni – Respondent
Key Points: - The proposed party ( Abdul Khadar ) sought impleadment as 7th defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC; the court dismissed the impleading petition. (!) (!) - Under Muslim Law, right by birth is not recognized; an heir-apparent/presumptive arises only on death of the ancestor. A predeceased son/daughter is excluded; the theory of representation is not recognised. (!) (!) (!) - The suit properties originally belonged to Ameena Beevi; her heirs (plaintiffs 1 and 2 and others) were determined; the proposed party, being child of a predeceased son, cannot claim a share. (!) (!) - Final decree/rights determined in preliminary decree and subsequent modifications; impleading a new party in final decree proceedings is not warranted where rights have been already adjudicated. (!) (!) (!) - The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with no costs. (!)
ORDER :
PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the impugned fair and decreetal order passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam, dated 05.09.2019 in I.A.No.234 of 2016 in O.S.No.19 of 1996.
This Civil Revision is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.234 of 2016 in O.S.No.19 of 1996, dated 05.09.2019 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam, dismissing the petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2.The revision petitioner is a third party. The respondents 1 and 2\plaintiffs have filed the above suit for partition and allotment of 1\2 share in the suit properties and for rendition of accounts by the 6th defendant for the income derived from the coconut thope. After trial, preliminary decree was passed on 08.07.2003. Aggrieved by the preliminary decree, the 6th defendant has preferred an appeal in A.S.No.336 of 2004 before this Court. Pending appeal, the parties have entered into compromise and on the basis of the said compromise, the decree passed by the trial Court was modified vide judgment dated 21.01.2014. It is not in dispute that meanwhile, the plainti
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
