ORDER

This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.626/2019 is directed against the impugned order dated 15.07.2023 passed on I.A.Nos.5 and 6, whereby the said applications filed by respondents 2 to 5 seeking impleadment in the suit was allowed by the trial court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

3. The material on record indicates that the petitioner –

plaintiff instituted the aforesaid against her mother 1st respondent herein for declaration, injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit is being contested by the 1st respondent – defendant. During the pendency of the suit, respondents 2 to 5 who are none other than the sisters of the petitioner and daughters of 1st respondent – defendant, all of them being children of 1st respondent and late Dr.Thippeswamy M.N. filed the instant applications seeking impleadment on the ground that the suit schedule property was a property purchased by their father Dr.Thippeswamy nominally in the name of the 1st respondent – mother and as such, upon demise of Dr.Thippeswamy on 16.10.2018, the petitioner, 1st respondent as well as respondents 2 to 5 were entitled to succeed to the suit schedule property. The said application having been opposed by the petitioner, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the applications, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

4. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the trial court has come to the conclusion that the rival contentions between the parties as regards the suit schedule property would necessarily have to be decided at the time of final disposal of the suit and not at the stage of considering the applications for impleadment. While arriving at the said conclusion, the trial court has noticed the undisputed relationship between the parties and demise of Dr.Thippeswamy on 16.10.2018 and has held that the applicants – respondents 2 to 5 are both proper and necessary parties to the suit. The said findings by the trial court in I.A.Nos. 5 and 6, reads as under:-

“ 8. Point No.i: The above suit is filed for the relief of declaration that plaintiff is the owner in possession of thesuit schedule property and directing the defendant to transfer the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff's name by executing necessary documents and restraining thedefendant not to alienate the suit schedule property tilldisposal of the suit. In the plaint it is stated that, defendantis mother and plaintiff and defendant and her husband Thippeswamy i.e., father of plaintiff have 5 daughters andplaintiff is younger daughter. It is stated that, suit schedule property is purchased on 14.05.2001 for exclusive benefit of plaintiff and for her future security. It is stated that, she has contributed money towards sale consideration topurchase the suit schedule property and therefore defendanthas no right over the same. On all these grounds she prayedto decree the suit.

9. In these applications other daughters of 1st defendant have contended that they are also legal heirs of deceased Tippeswamy and present defendant and that they haveinterest over the suit schedule property. It is necessary to notice that admittedly suit schedule property stands in thename of defendant who is mother of plaintiff and applicants.Whether it is joint family property or property purchased exclusively for the benefit of plaintiff and therefore it is her absolute property will have to be tested by trial. Applicantsbeing daughters of 1st defendant and heirs of deceased Tippeswamy, appears to have interest in the suit schedule property and also interested to contest the above case. Therefore, objections of plaintiff are not tenable at this stage,because according to plaintiff, she has contributed the amount to purchase the suit schedule property, that cannot be decided at this stage. Whether she has actually contributed to purchase the