In partition suits, all necessary parties must be included to ensure proper adjudication of claims and rights.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners - plaintiffs are before this Court calling in question an order dated 28.02.2025 passed in O.S.No.744/2023 by which the concerned Court allows the application filed by the defendant in I.A.No.5 filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('the CPC' for short) to implead defendant No.3.

2. Heard Shri Subramanya S. Upasana, learned counsel for Shri Venkatesh Prasad R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Shri Jagruth, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt. G.K. Bhavana, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:

One late J.M. Chandrappa is said to have entered into a joint development agreement with M/s. Sai Kalyan Builders and Developers on 06.01.2020. The said late J.M. Chandrappa dies intestate on 15.07.2020, leaving behind the mother and first respondent - wife as the legal heirs. The third respondent institutes a suit in O.S.No.441/2022 claiming to be having 1/3^rd share of the property of late J.M. Chandrappa on the score that she is a child born to J.M. Chandrappa. On 28.12.2022, the first respondent is said to have declared herself to be a sole legal heir excluding the plaintiffs. Therefore, comes the suit in O.S.No.744/2023 seeking partition, injunction and asserting her 50% share in the suit properties. The concerned Court grants interim injunction restraining respondents No.1 and 2 from creating any third party rights. Written statements were filed by the defendants. Along with the same, an application in I.A.No.5 under Order I Rule 10 of the Cr.P.C. comes to be filed by defendant No.3 to implead herself in the subject O.S. The concerned Court allows the application. The plaintiffs claiming to be aggrieved by the said order are before this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that defendant No.3, who claims to be the daughter of late J.M. Chandrappa has filed a suit to determine that she is entitled to a share in the property in O.S.No.441/2022. Her rights as a daughter is yet to be determined in the said suit. Notwithstanding the same, she is wanting to come into the proceedings, which is instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendants, the widow of late J.M. Chandrappa. He would submit that she is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. He would seek the application be dismissed and petition be allowed.

5. Per contra, Shri P.N. Manmohan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently contend that defendant No.3 is the child born to late J.M. Chandrappa. Keeping her away from the share of the property in a suit for partition or injunction, rights of defendant No.3 would put to great jeopardy. In that light, the learned counsel submits that there is no warrant to interfere with the order.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have pursued the available material on record.

7. The afore narrated facts of institution of the suits, dates, link in the chain of events are all a matter of record. The plaintiffs are the wife and children of one late J.M. Chandrappa. Late J.M. Chandrappa dies intestate on 15.07.2020. Suit is instituted by defendant No.3 claiming to be the child of late J.M. Chandrappa and seeking 1/3^rd share in his properties. In the interregnum, the plaintiffs institutes suit in O.S.No.744/2023 for partition and injunction claiming 50% of the share in this suit property to each of them. The claim therefore over lapse. If defendant No.3 has a right to contend that she is entitled to 1/3^rd share in the property, she would bec