G.Shanthakumari v. G.Neelamegan
Case brief
What is this about?
Allowed applications to implead proposed parties in a partition suit (C.S.No.405 of 2012) as necessary parties since properties are transferred in their names, directing amendment of the plaint.
What did the court decide?
Both applications for impleading the 5th respondent as 5th defendant/respondent were allowed; plaintiff to file amended plaint.
What the court decided
1
A.3527 of 2013 and 6771 of 2016 in C.S.No.405 of 2012
N.Sathish Kumar, J.,
A .No.3527 of 2013 is filed to implead the 5th respondent herein as
5th defendant in the suit. A.No.6771 of 2016 is filed to implead the proposed 5th respondent as 5th respondent in the application.
- Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and there is no representation on behalf of the respondents.
- The suit is filed for partition. Since, the properties are transferred in the name of the proposed parties, the proposed parties are necessary parties to decide the issue raised in the suit, some properties are already transferred in favour of the proposed parties. Impleading the proposed parties are not going to prejudice the rights of the respondents. Hence, both the applications are allowed.
- The learned counsel for the plaintiff is directed to carryout
necessary amendment in the suit and directed to file amended copy of the plaint, after serving the same to the respondents/defendants and to newly impleaded parties.
11.01.2017
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the proposed parties are necessary parties to decide the issue raised in a partition suit regarding transferred properties.
Coram
N. Sathish Kumar
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court