Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 23994
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
K.MANMADHA RAO, J
MANIPAL HIGH SCHOOL TRUST – Appellant
Versus
DR. SHEELA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.24658 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H.
For the Respondents: SRI. ADITHYA NARAYANA
The involvement of a trust in a family inheritance dispute is unnecessary for effective resolution under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, emphasizing the need for relevant parties only.
Headnote:(A) Indian Succession Act - Part 10 - Writ Petition seeking quashment of order of the trial Court denying impleadment of a trust has been dismissed. Court emphasizes necessity of parties for effective adjudication per Order I Rule 10 of CPC, noting that the trust is not necessary for resolving familial disputes over inheritance. (Paras 15, 16)
(B) Pleadings - The trial Court found that the Trust's interest in shares bequeathed under a Will does not necessitate its involvement in the ongoing lawsuit among family members. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
The suit concerns a dispute over a probate and succession certificate regarding shares belonging to a deceased, with the petitioner denied impleadment on grounds of lacking necessity.
Findings of Court:
The court observed dismissal of the application is justified as it would not impact the resolution of the dispute between family members directly.
Issues: The crucial issue was whether the petitioner was a necessary party for effective adjudication of the family dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the involvement of the Trust is unnecessary for adjudicating familial disputes, allowing the family to litigate their inheritance issues without additional parties involved.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition seeks to address succession disputes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding necessity of parties. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. court's observations on legal necessity. (Para 15) |
| 4. final ruling on the writ petition. (Para 16) |
CAV ORDER
1. This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order dated 14.11.2022 passed by Addl. Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Udupi in O.S.No.26/2015 on I.A.No.XIII (Annexure-A).
2. The petitioner herein is the proposed Defendant No.5 and the Respondents No.1 to 5 are plaintiff, defendant Nos.1(a) and (b) and defendants 2 to 4 respectively, before the trial Court.
The Brief Facts of the case are as follows:
3. The plaintiff-Dr.Sheela filed a suit before the trial court for probation and succession certificate against the Respondents No. 2 to 5 under Part 10 of Indian Succession Act in favour of the plaintiff in respect of shares mentioned in the schedule.
4. Plaintiff is the daughter of Late T.Ramesh U Pai and Late Shanthi R Pai. The 2nd Defendant is the sister of the Plaintiff and Defendants 2 and 3 are the brothers. The Plaintiff and the defendants are the children and legal heirs of Late T Ramesh U Pai and Late Shanthi R Pai.
5. Defendants are children and legal heirs of Mr.T,Ramesh Pai. Trust purchased huge shares in his name and during the purchase of shares for the trust, T.Ramesh Pai was the trustee of the Manipal High School Trust, Vidyanagara, Manipal.
6. During the course of the adjudication of the matter after framing the issues towards the suit schedule property and execution of Will dated 20.02.1995 bequeathed by T Ramesh Pai, the petitioner herein, having passed necessary resolution in the Board of Trust meeting held on 08.10.2022, filed an application dated 20.10.2022, to be impleaded as the defendant No.5 under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 94(e) and 151 of CPC .
7. The trial after hearing both the sides, dismissed the I.A. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has filed the current writ petition.
8. Heard Counsel for petitioner and Respondent No.1. Other respondents though served, remained unrepresented.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the trial Court without applying mind independently and without giving any findings dismissed the application.
10. It was also contended that the petitioner is a registered trust under Indian Trust Act and purchased huge shares in his name and at the time of purchase, T Ramesh Pai was the trustee, who is the ancestor of the defendants and the same shares are included in the plaint schedule and therefore, petitioner is necessary party for the effective adjudication of dispute.
11. It was further contended that addition of parties under Rule 10 of CPC is one of the judicial description which has to be exercised in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. This being a peculiar case, the trial court ought to have allowed the impleading application. It was also contended that the necessary party is one in whose absence the court cannot pass an effective decree and here in the suit, where the authority for whose benefit, the acquisition is proposed cannot be said to have direct legal interest and therefore, the trial Court ought to have provided opportunity to the proposed applicant to present his case.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the dispute between the parties in respect of the assets belonging to the parents of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 3 and same is pending for adjudication of shares in the suit schedule properties under the Rules of intestate succession or whether the Will propounded by defendant No.2 is valid and the assets of the parents of the aforesaid parties to the suit must devolve on the basis of the said Will. In the above said suit, the trial has commenced and it is at the stage of cross examination of PW.1.
13. The counsel for respondent No.1 has contended that at this stage, the petitioner herein has fil
