ORDER : B. Veerappa, J. The petitioners are before this Court challenging the order dated 6-1-2016 made on LA. No. 15 in O.S. No. 1014 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala, whereby the Trial Court rejected their application for impleading. 2. The respondents nos. 1 to 7 and 10, who are plaintiffs before the Trial Court filed a suit for partition of the suit schedule properties, contending that they are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The defendants filed the written statement denying the entire plaint averments and contending that there was an earlier partition and in view of the same, suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable. After framing of the issues, the present application i.e., I.A. No. 15 is filed by the applicants/petitioners under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to implead them as defendants nos. 5 to 9 in the suit. It is the case of the applicants/petitioners that the suit schedule property is a gramathana land totally measuring 1 acre 13 guntas situated at Sheshagiripalya Village, Bangalore North Taluk; the landowners of said Sheshagiripalya Village i.e., Survey Nos. 1 to 6 and sub-numbers are owners holding the agricultural lands; but, the gramatana land maintained intact as that of joint ownership and that all the holders of the said survey number are having equal entitlement to enjoy the gramatana property; all the impleading applicants are having property and enjoying agricultural lands in their respective portions and they are entitled to hold right over suit schedule property on apportionment that requires to be done by the Panchayath Authorities who are the Competent Authorities; though the applicants have given representation, the concerned Panchayath Authorities have failed to make such apportionment and demarcation of portion of property in their individual names and therefore they are the proper and necessary parties to the suit. 3. The application for impleading was resisted by the plaintiffs by filing objections. The plaintiffs have denied the averments made in the application and specifically contended that the suit schedule property'- is a gramathana property, which originally belongs to father of the plaintiffs. 3. The application for impleading was resisted by the plaintiffs by filing objections. The plaintiffs have denied the averments made in the application and specifically contended that the suit schedule property'- is a gramathana property, which originally belongs to father of the plaintiffs. The grandfather of the plaintiffs viz., Dodd alingappa had purchased the entire village of Seshagiripalya from his vendor by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 14-10-1903 and subsequently after advent of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, the agricultural lands measuring S3 acres 9 guntas situated at Seshagiripalya and Pillahalli were regranted in favour of family members and the suit schedule property remained as a joint family property and was in possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs nos. 1 and 2 and the applicants have no manner of right, title and interest and they are not [necessary and proper parties to the suit and hence prays for dismissal of the application. 4. The defendants have also filed objections reiterating the objections made by the plaintiffs to the application for impleadment. 5. After hearing both the parties, learned Trial Judge by the impugned order dated 6-1-2016 dismissed the application for impleading filed by the applicants holding that the claim of the applicants is seriously disputed by the plaintiffs as well as defendants no. 1. But they have not produced any material documents before the Court to show their connection with the suit property. Apart from that, the applicants have not produced materials before this Court to show that they have exhausted remedy before the Competent Authority so as to enter their names in respect of suit property on alleged apportionment basis and also to prove their alleged possession over the suit property as on the date of filing the present application. Therefore the Trial Court rejected the application and accordingly rejected the application. Hence the present writ petition is filed. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis. 7. Sri Siddamailappa, learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application for impleadment is opposed to law and contended that the applicants/petitioners have got right in the suit schedule property, which is a gramathana property and they are in possession of the respective portions, morefully described in the application for impleading. Therefore they are proper and necessary parties to the proceedings. Therefore they are proper and necessary parties to the proceedings. He also relied upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Baluram v. P. wlkthangam, (2015) 13 SCC 579 to the effect that a 'necessary party' is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the Court. If a 'necessary party' is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A 'proper party' is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the Court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be proper or necessary party, the Court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff. The fact that a person is likely to secure a right/interest in a suit property, after the suit is decided against the plaintiff, will not make such person necessary and proper party to the suit. Therefore he sought to allow the writ petition. 8. Per contra, Sri Kenchegowda, learned Counsel for respondent No. 8; Praveen Hegde, learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 7 and Krishna Kumar K.K, learned Counsel for respondent no. 10 contended that mere assertion made by the impleading applicants that they are in possession of the suit schedule property, which is gramathana property without any material documents cannot be accepted and so they are not necessary and proper parties to the suit and therefore the Trial Court is justified in dismissing the application. 9. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis, the only point that arises for consideration is: "Whether the petitioners have made out a case for interference with the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?" 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. 11. It is an undisputed fact that the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of the suit schedule properties. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. 11. It is an undisputed fact that the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of the suit schedule properties. As per the plaint averments, originally the grandfather of the plaintiffs nos. 2, 3, 4 to 8 viz., Doddalingappa purchased the entire Village of Seshagiripalya by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 14-10-1903 and after advent of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, the agricultural lands measuring 93 acres 9 guntas situated at Seshagiripalya and Pillahalli were regranted in favour of family members and the suit schedule property remained as a joint family property and was in possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs nos. 1 and 2. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently opposed the above averments made in the plaint, ultimately, the matter has to be decided by the Trial Court after adjudication of the dispute between the parties, both on oral and documentary evidence on record. This Court is concerned only as to whether the applicants are necessary and proper parties to the proceedings. In the present case, admittedly the impleading applicants claim that they have a right in the suit schedule property which is a gramathana property and they are in possession of the respective portions, morefully described in the application for impleading, but the Revenue Authorities have not considered the same nor passed any orders and taking advantage, the plaintiff and defendants colluded together and filed the suit for partition, which is not maintainable. 12. The fact remains that applicants have to show prima facie case how they are interested in the properties. Merely because they claim that they are holding agricultural lands in suit schedule properties, it is not a ground, in the absence of any material documents produced before the Court to show that they have any semblance of right. If they have got any right, it is open for them to approach the Competent Court to protect their right. The Trial Court considering the entire material on record, recorded a specific finding that the daim of the applicants is seriously disputed by the plaintiff as well as defendants no. 1. If they have got any right, it is open for them to approach the Competent Court to protect their right. The Trial Court considering the entire material on record, recorded a specific finding that the daim of the applicants is seriously disputed by the plaintiff as well as defendants no. 1. The applicants have come out with a definite case claiming their ownership over the suit schedule property as they are holding agricultural land and the suit schedule property maintained intact as that of their joint ownership and the suit property is to be equally partitioned among them. In order to prove the prima facie right over the suit schedule property, the applicants have not produced any material before the Court. As per the versions of the applicants, they have submitted the representations before the Panchayath authorities for apportionment and demarcation of the suit schedule property in their individual names. But the authorities have failed to do so. In the absence of material documents for having claimed the alleged right of apportionment in the suit property by the applicants, it is very difficult for this Court to come to a conclusion that the presence of the applicants is necessary to settle all the questions involved in the suit effectively and completely. Absolutely no materials were placed before the Court to show their connection with the suit property. Apart from that, the applicants have not produced material before the Court to show that they have exhausted their remedy before the Competent Authorities so as to enter their names in respect of the suit schedule property on the alleged apportionment basis and also to prove their alleged possession over the suit property as on the date of the application for impleading. Therefore they are not necessary' and proper parties to the proceedings. 13. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Baluram v. P. Chellathangam cited supra wherein at paragraph 13, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "In Mumbai International Airport (Private) Limited v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels (Private) Limited, (2010)7 SCC 417 , this Court observed: "13. 13. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Baluram v. P. Chellathangam cited supra wherein at paragraph 13, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "In Mumbai International Airport (Private) Limited v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels (Private) Limited, (2010)7 SCC 417 , this Court observed: "13. The general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief. Consequently, a person who is not a party has no right to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. But this general rule is subject to the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure ("the Code", for short), which provides for impleadment of proper or necessary parties. The said sub-rule is extracted below: "10. (2) Court may strike out ox add parties.-The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added." 14. The said provision makes it clear that a Court may, at any stage of the proceedings (including suits for specific performance), either upon or even without any application, and on such terms as may appear to it to be just, direct that any of the following persons may be added as a party: (a) any person who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant, but not added; or (b) any person whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the suit. In short, the Court is given the discretion to add as a party, any person who is found to be a necessary party or proper party. 15. In short, the Court is given the discretion to add as a party, any person who is found to be a necessary party or proper party. 15. A "necessary party" is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the Court. If a "necessary party" is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A "proper party" is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the Court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the Court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff. The fact that a person is likely to secure a right/interest in a suit property, after the suit is decided against the plaintiff, will not make such person a necessary party or a proper party to the suit for specific performance. ******** 19. Referring to suits for specific performance, this Court in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal. (2005) 6 SCC 733 , held that the following persons are to be considered as necessary parties: (i) the parties to the contract which is sought to be enforced or their legal representatives; (ii) a transferee of the property which is the subject-matter of the contract. This Court also explained that a person who has a direct interest in the subject-matter of the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale may be impleaded as a proper party on his application under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC. This Court concluded that a purchaser of the suit property subsequent to the suit agreement would be a necessary party as he would be affected if he had purchased it with or without notice of the contract, but a person who claims a title adverse to that of the defendant vendor will not be a necessary party. ******** 22. Let us consider the scope and ambit of Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of CPC regarding striking out or adding parties. ******** 22. Let us consider the scope and ambit of Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of CPC regarding striking out or adding parties. The said sub-rule is not about the right of a non-party to be impleaded as a party, but about the judicial discretion of the Court to strike out or add parties at any stage of a proceeding. The discretion under the sub-rule can be exercised either suo motu or on the application of the plaintiff or the defendant, or on an application of a person who is not a party to the suit. The Court can strike out any party who is improperly joined. The Court can add anyone as a plaintiff or as a defendant if it finds that he is a necessary party or proper party. Such deletion or addition can be without any conditions or subject to such terms as the Court deems fit to impose. In exercising its judicial discretion under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code, the Court will of course act according to reason and fair play and not according to whims and caprice."" 14. Thus, it is clear from the records that the applicants are not necessary and proper parties. This Court has no jurisdiction to include them against the wishes of the plaintiffs who claim their right based on the source of title and grant. It is for the plaintiffs to establish their rights independently. If the plaintiffs able to prove the property belongs to the joint family, it is for the Court to decide after adjudication of the same. If the applicants have got any independent right, they are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. 15. In these circumstances, the issue raised in the present writ petition has to be answered in the negative holding that the applicants have not made out any case for interference with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. 16. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is just and proper and in accordance with the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.