SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Monday, June 23, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Sidharta Basu
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1975 SCC OnLine Kar 77 : AIR 1976 Kar 62 : (1975) 2 Kant LJ 282
Karnataka High Court
BEFORE B. VENKATASWAMI, J.
Iramma and others, … Petitioners;
Versus
Chandamma and another, … Respondents.
Revn. Petn. No. 371 of 1975
Decided on July 16, 1975
ORDER
1. This revision petition is by the applicants in I.A. II of R.A. No. 53 of 1974 before
the Principal Civil Judge at Gulbarga. They are aggrieved by the order made on the
said application, whereby their
Page: 63
prayer for their being brought on record as co-appellants (co-plaintiffs in the court
below) was refused.
2. The relevant facts brieflly are as follows:—
Respondent 1 herein (plaintiff in the trial court) filed O.S. No. 61 of 1971 on the file
of the Munsiff at Chincholi for a decree of declaration of title and injunction. In the
plaint she had clearly averred that she was suing not only for herself but also on behalf
of her daughters, who are the applicants in I.A. II aforesaid, as they were all co-
owners of the suit property. The suit was resisted by respondent 2 herein on various
grounds which it is unnecessary to particularise. ??? is relevant is that no objection on
the ground of non-joinder of parties had been raised by way of defence. The trial court
dealt with all the issues in the case and recorded its findings. It also concluded that
the decree of declaration of title could not be granted as the other co-owners had not
been joined as parties. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff alone
appealed to the learned Civil Judge in R.A. No. 53 of 1974. Apparently with a view to
cure the defect of non-joinder pointed out by the learned Munsiff, the present
petitioners preferred an application under Rule 10(2) of Order 1, Civil P.C. On behalf of
the plaintiff-appellant, the application was not opposed, and, on the other hand, she
was agreeable to the applicants in I.A. II coming on record. On behalf of respondent 2
herein, however, the application was opposed. The learned Civil Judge rejected the
application (I.A. II) on the ground that it was belated, and if allowed it would lead to
the framing of additional issues, thus rendering it necessary to afford a further
opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence, and the same was impermissible when
all the necessary issues had been framed and findings recorded. Aggrieved by the said
order, the petitioners have approached this Court.
3. On behalf of the petitioners, a memo has been filed by their learned counsel, the
material portion of which reads thus:
“2. The petitioners are seeking to come on record in order to cure an initial infirmity
in the suit. The infirmity is that the suit being one for declaration of title and
permanent injunction, the same could not have been brought by one of the co-
owners in the absence of other co-owners.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Monday, June 23, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Sidharta Basu
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The petitioners submit that they adopt the plaint filed by the plaintiff and stand
by the evidence adduced by her in the case. They will not seek further opportunity
to lead evidence on the ground that there was no occasion for them to do so earlier.
However, the petitioners reserve their right to lead evidence if the decree is set
aside and the suit is remanded on other grounds.”
4. It is plain from the above memo that one of the grounds of objection referred to
by the learned Civil Judge to the effect that it might necessitate a remand and re-trial
of the suit, would no longer be available.
5. The only other question, that survives is one of delay. In this connection it is to
be remembered that no objection on the score of non-joinder of parties had been
raised by way of defence. On the other hand, the plaintiff had clearly stated in the
plaint that she was suing on behalf of the present petitioners also, and therefore the
relief of declaration prayed for by her should have been read in the light of such a
specific plea. In these circumstances if the petitioners are taken unawares by the
judgment of the learned Munsiff on the question of nonjoinder, it cannot be said that
the application I.A. II filed by them for the first time in appeal was in any manner
belated.
6. It is no doubt contended by Sri K. Appa Rao, the learned counsel for respondent
2 herein, that it would have been legal and proper if the appellant (plaintiff in the
lower court) had herself filed the application requesting for the addition of these
petitioners as co-plaintiffs, and therefore co-appellants. Having regard to the
provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1, Civil P.C., it seems to me that the
procedure adopted by the petitioners would fulfil the requirement of the said rule,
which also provides for addition of parties by court suo motu. Hence I do not find any
substance in this objection of Sri Appa Rao.
7. On behalf of the petitioners, reliance was placed on a certain enunciation of the
Supreme Court in Kanakarathanamal v. Loganatha, (AIR 1965 SC 271). The facts of
that case were that the appellant had sued for recovery of properties belonging to her
mother Rajambal claiming to be the sole heir thereof while she had two brothers
living. The said brothers had not been made parties to the suit. At no stage in the
proceedings before the trial court or the High Court, any attempt was made by her to
bring the said two brothers on record as co-heirs. Ultimately she was non-suited for
such failure. It was in that context before the Supreme Court an attempt was made on
her behalf to bring the said two brothers on record. The Supreme Court rejected the
said application and stated the reasons therefor. The relevant passage occurs at
paragraph 14 of the said report, which reads thus:
“(14) We do not think there is any justification for allowing the appellant to amend
her plaint by adding her brothers at this late stage. We have already noticed that
the plea of non-joinder had been expressly taken by respondents 1 and 2 in the
trial Court and a clear and specific issue had been framed in respect of this
contention. While the suit was being tried, the appellant might have applied to the
trial Court to add her brothere,
Page: 64
but no such application was made. Even after the suit was dismissed by the trial Court
on this ground it does not Appear that the appellant moved the High Court and prayed
that she should be allowed to join her brothers even at the appellate stage, and, so,
the High Court had no occasion to consider the said point. The fact that the High Court
came to the contrary conclusion on the question of title does not matter, because if
the appellant wanted to cure the infirmity in her plaint, she should have presented an
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Monday, June 23, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Sidharta Basu
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
application in that behalf at the hearing of the appeal itself. In fact, no such
application was made even to this Court until the appeal was allowed to stand over
after it was heard. Under the circumtances, we do not think it would be possible for us
to entertain the said application. In the result, the application for amendment is
rejected.”
(emphasis supplied)
8. Relying on the said enunciation, it is contended by Sri N. Govindaraj, the learned
counsel for the petitioners, that it was implicit in the observations of the Supreme
Court that it was open to a party to bring the co-owners on record even at the stage of
an appeal provided there was no laches or negligence. In the instant case, in the
circumstances afore-mentioned, the plaintiff at all relevant times thought that she was
suing both for herself and her daughters in seeking a declaratory decree. No objection
whatsoever was ever taken by the defendant in the suit on the ground of non-joinder
of parties. In such a situation if the other co-owners are sought to come on record by
themselves with the concurrence of the plaintiff, it is not reasonable to hold that there
was an element of negligence on the part of the said parties. Moreover, it seems to
me, if they are not brought on record, their interests would remain unaffected and
would merely give rise to another suit going over the ground all over again. Such
multiplicity of proceedings ought ordinarily to be avoided by a Court. Further, certain
material issues raised in the case have been held in favour of the defendant and any
such suit that may be filed by persons in the position of the petitioners herein would
have the effect of rendering such findings inoperative, much to the prejudice of the
defendant. The above enunciation of the Supreme Court, seems to support the
contention urged by Sri Govindaraj, and therefore clearly deserves to be accepted.
9. But Sri Appa Rao drew my attention to a further enunciation in the above said
decision of the Supreme Court occurring in Paragraph 15 thereof, wherein it is
observed that the stage for joining such necessary parties subject to pleas of prejudice
and limitation, was when the proceedings were pending in the trial court. But it is
seen from the portion emphasised in the passage reproduced earlier that it would have
been permissible for the appellant therein to have moved the High Court at least to
join her brothers as parties. Hence the enunciation relied on by Sri Appa Rao would
have to be understood in the light of the aforesaid enunciation. I am not therefore in
agreement with the contention of Sri Appa Rao.
10. In the result this petition clearly deserves to be accepted and is accordingly
allowed. The order of the learned Principal Civil Judge, Gulbarga, on I.A. II in R.A. No.
53 of 1974 is hereby set aside. Consequently, I.A. II stands allowed. The learned Civil
Judge is directed to permit the petitioners to be brought on record as co-appellants
with the plaintiff and proceed to dispose of the appeal, keeping in view the
undertaking given by the petitioners and recorded earlier.
11. In the circumstances of the case, I am inclined to think that the petitioners
herein should be directed to pay some compensatory costs to the defendant-
respondent 2 on account of the inconvenience caused to her. Taking all the
circumstances into consideration, I direct the revision petitioners (additional
appellants) to pay to the 2nd respondent herein Rs. 150/- as compensatory costs
before they are actually brought on record, and the said costs shall not be costs in the
cause. In this petition, I make no order as to costs.
12. Revision allowed.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.
