ORDER Ajit J. Gunjal, J.—The Petitioner is applicant in I.A. No. V. The said application is filed under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. to get herself impleaded in a final decree proceedings, which is dismissed. 2. Respondents-1 to 10 have filed a suit in O.S. No. 4/81 for partition and separate possession of their 5/6th share in the suit schedule property. The suit properties are agricultural land as well as residential house. After contest the said suit was decreed. As against which, R.A. No. 68/97 was preferred which was dismissed. Against which, RSA 700/93 was preferred which was also dismissed by this Court confirming the judgment and decree passed in the suit. 3. Respondents-1 to 10 initiated final decree proceedings in FDP 4/2000. In the said FDP proceedings, the petitioner herein claiming to be the wife of one Basavanthrao, brother of Gundappa Hosmani, under whom the respondents claim title to the property, filed an application for impleading. The said application, as stated earlier, was rejected on the ground that no material is forth coming to show that she is the wife of deceased Basavanthrao. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that indeed the final decree proceeding is continuation of the original proceedings, the petitioner is entitled to a share in the property, is a proper and necessary party. Hence, the learned Trial Judge was not justified in rejecting the said application. 5. Mr. Sanjivkumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits indeed the petitioner is not the wife of deceased Basavanthrao and also the property in question is the self-acquired property. Hence, justifies the order. 6. Indeed, as has been stated consistently the scope of an application under Order 1, Rule 10 is not to see whether the applicant is entitled for the ultimate relief, but only to see whether she is a necessary and proper party. Indeed in the case on the hand a specific contention is taken by the applicant to the effect that she has a share in the property and also that she is the widow of deceased Basavanthrao who is none other than the brother of Gundappa Hosmani. Since the final decree proceeding is in continuation of the original proceedings, there should not be any impediment in granting the said application. Since the final decree proceeding is in continuation of the original proceedings, there should not be any impediment in granting the said application. If any ruling is required in this regard one can refer to the decision in the case of Smt. Aswathamma Vs. H.M. Vijayaraghava, AIR 1999 Kant 21. The fact that the application of the applicant is granted does not necessarily prove the fact that she is the widow of deceased Basavanthrao and that the property in question is a joint family property consisting of Gundappa and Basavanthrao. Indeed this is required to be considered after a due enquiry. The observation if any in this regard would be only for the purpose of ascertaining whether the applicant is a necessary or a proper party to the proceeding. Hence, I am of the view that the learned trial Judge was clearly in error in rejecting the said application. 7. Consequently, the following order is passed: 8. The impugned order at Annexure-A stands quashed. The application for impleading is granted. The applicant/petitioner shall come on record as supplemental respondent in the final decree proceedings. All other questions regarding status of the petitioner applicant and whether the property is a self acquired property of Gundappa or is a joint family property are kept open to be decided during an enquiry. 9. Rule is issued and made absolute.