The petitioner being aggrieved by the order

dated

31.05.2018

on

I.A.No.2

passed

in

F.D.P.No.57/2015 by the 1^st Additional Senior Civil

Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, has filed

this writ petition.

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this

petition are as under:

That the mother of the petitioner Smt.Guramma

had purchased the suit property under a registered

sale deed dated 14.11.1959. After her demise,

4

petitioner's name was effected and entered vide

M.R.No.4/1989-90 with due consent of his father -

H.Lakshmaiah Reddy and he became the owner and in

possession of the same. The father of the petitioner,

in collusion with the revenue officials, got the revenue

records mutated for the joint names of himself and

the petitioner vide M.R.No.40/2002-03 without the

knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner being

aggrieved by the revenue records, filed a suit in

O.S.No.1083/2005 before the Trial Court seeking for

the relief of declaration of ownership and permanent

injunction. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree

dated 06.01.2009 dismissed the suit of the petitioner.

The petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment and

decree passed by the Trial Court, preferred an appeal

in R.A.No.46/2009 before the Principal District Judge,

Bengaluru Rural District. The Appellate Court vide

judgment and decree dated 29.08.2009, allowed the

5

appeal and decreed the suit of the petitioner and

moulded the relief of declaration into a partition suit

and declared that the petitioner is a owner of half

share in the plaint schedule property and father of the

petitioner - H.Lakshmaiah Reddy was declared as a

owner of half share in the plaint schedule property.

The petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed in

R.A.No.46/2009,

preferred

Second

appeal

in

R.S.A.No.1500/2009 before this Court. This Court

vide judgment and decree dated 08.09.2010, allowed

the second appeal and set aside the judgment and

decree passed in R.A.No.46/2009. The respondents

filed a review petition in R.P.No.398/2010 before this

Court. This Court vide order dated 25.11.2010

dismissed the review petition. The respondents being

aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in

R.S.A.No.1500/2009 have preferred an SLP in Civil

Appeal Nos.3725-3726/2015 before the Hon'bel Apex

6

Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment dated

17.04.2015, allowed the appeal and set aside the

judgment and decree passed by this Court and

restored the judgment and decree passed by the

Lower Appellate Court.

2.2. The father of the petitioner H.Lakshmaiah

Reddy and Respondents No.2 to 5 herein filed a Final

Decree Proceedings in FDP.No.57/2015. During

pendency of the FDP proceedings the respondent

H.Lakshmiaiah Reddy i.e., the father of the petitioner

died and the respondents No.2 to 5 filed an

application seeking permission to bring the mother of

respondents No.2 to 5 Smt.Jayalakshmamma the

second wife of deceased H.Lakshmaiah Reddy as legal

representative on record. The said application was

opposed by the petitioner by filing a detailed

objection. The Trial Court after hearing the parties,

allowed

the

application

and

permitted

the

7

Smt.Jayalakshmamma

wife

of

the

deceased

H.Lakshmaiah Reddy to come on record as legal

representative of deceased H.Lakshmaiah Reddy as

Petitioner No.1(a) therein. Hence, the petitioner being

aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.2 has filed

this writ No.

Heard

the

learned

counsel

for

the

petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the application filed by respondents No.2 to 5 is

not maintainable. He submits that the proposed legal

representative

is

not

a

wife

of the

deceased

H.Lakshmaiah Reddy therein. He further states that

she is not a legal representative of deceased

H.Lakshmaiah Reddy. He further submits that the

succession was opened after the death of mother of

the petitioner i.e., Guramma. He further submits

8

that as per Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession

Act, the petitioner is the only successor to