ORDER : The petitioners who are the plaintiffs before the trial Court filed the present Writ Petition against the order dated 05.12.2017 on I.A.No.5 made in O.S.No.183/2012 allowing the application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to bring the legal representative of deceased 6th defendant on record. 2. The plaintiffs filed suit for declaration to declare that the sale deed executed by the defendants No.1 and 5 in favour of 7th defendant in respect of Item No.1 of the schedule property dated 11.09.1996 and sale deed executed by 6th defendant in favour of 8th defendant i.e., Item No.2 dated 25.05.2006 is not binding upon the 1/3rd share of the plaintiffs and further, direct the defendants No.1 to 6 to effect partition of the schedule properties by metes and bounds and gave 1/3rd share to the plaintiffs free from encumbrance and put in physical possession of the plaintiffs lawful share. 3. The defendant No.1 is the 1st plaintiff’s husband’s younger brother’s wife. Defendants No.2 to 5 are the sons and daughter of the 1st defendant. 6th defendant is the 1st plaintiff’s husband’s younger brother. Plaintiffs No.2, 4 and 5 are the sons and daughter of the 1st plaintiff. 3rd plaintiff is the daughter-in-law of the 1st plaintiff. The defendants No.7 and 8 are the purchaser of item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 6 are members of the joint family and there was no partition. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to the share sought for. 4. Defendant Nos.6, 7 and 8 filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. During the pendency of the proceedings, 6th defendant died on 02.01.2015 and on 09.04.2015, application came to be filed by the applicant – Smt. Lakshmamma under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure claiming that she is the wife and only legal representative of deceased 6th defendant. However, plaintiffs filed objections contending that the application is not maintainable. They have denied that the applicant is the wife of the deceased 6th defendant and applicant is no way related to the defendant No.6 and he was not married during his lifetime. However, plaintiffs filed objections contending that the application is not maintainable. They have denied that the applicant is the wife of the deceased 6th defendant and applicant is no way related to the defendant No.6 and he was not married during his lifetime. Other defendants have not filed any objections and also they have not denied the relationship between the 6th defendant and the applicant. Therefore, the trial Court has held an enquiry as contemplated under Order 22 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure. The proposed legal representative/applicant was examined as AW-1 and three witnesses were examined as AWs.2 to 4 and produced the material documents as Ex.A1 to Ex.A14. The plaintiff No.2 was examined as RW-1 and another witness as RW-2 and produced documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R16. 6. The trial Court considering the entire material on record by the impugned order dated 05.12.2017 allowed the application. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The counsel for 9th respondent/caveator remained absent. 8. Sri. Shivarama Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court allowing the application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure is erroneous and contrary to material on record. He would further contended that the trial Court ought to have held that there is no proof for the marriage alleged to have been performed between respondent No.9 and deceased defendant No.6 on 21.04.2014. The alleged marriage invitation card and the photographs produced by the proposed defendant regarding the performance of the marriage were concocted for the purpose of the case. He would further contend that if the marriage was performed in the temple, the temple authorities ought to have examined. Neither the temple authorities nor the archaka have been examined to prove the alleged marriage. Mere production of the invitation card and the alleged photographs cannot prove the marriage unless the performance of the marriage is proved in accordance with law. In the absence of proof of the marriage, the trial Court is not justified in allowing the application. Therefore, he sought for quashing the impugned order by allowing the present Writ Petition. 9. Mere production of the invitation card and the alleged photographs cannot prove the marriage unless the performance of the marriage is proved in accordance with law. In the absence of proof of the marriage, the trial Court is not justified in allowing the application. Therefore, he sought for quashing the impugned order by allowing the present Writ Petition. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is not in dispute that the plaintiffs filed suit for partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule property alleging that the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 6 are members of the joint family. The same was denied by the defendants by filing written statement. It is also not in dispute that the 6th defendant died during the pendency of the suit i.e., on 02.01.2015. Therefore, application came to be filed by the 9th respondent claiming as legal representative/wife of the deceased-6th defendant to come on record under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure. Though the plaintiffs disputed the relationship and filed objections, the other defendants who are members of the joint family have not filed any objections to the said application. Since there was a dispute, the trial Court held an enquiry as contemplated under Order 22 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure. In order to prove the relationship of the deceased with the applicant, applicant/9th defendant was examined as AW-1 and other three witnesses as AWs.2 to 4. To disprove the same, plaintiff No.2 was examined as RW-1 and another witness as RW-2 and produced documents. The trial Court considering the application and the objections and the evidence on record, by the impugned order recorded a categorical finding that the plaintiffs have cross examined AWs.1 to 4. But nothing has been elicited from them to dispute their evidence regarding the marriage between the applicant and deceased defendant No.6. More over, the applicant has produced the marriage invitation card as per Ex.A3 and photos of the marriage as per Ex.A6 to A13 and CD as per Ex.A14. These documents clearly show the performance of marriage between applicant and deceased defendant No.6. The plaintiffs have not seriously disputed these documents. Under such circumstances, it is to be accepted that the deceased Mooganaika has married applicant during his lifetime. These documents clearly show the performance of marriage between applicant and deceased defendant No.6. The plaintiffs have not seriously disputed these documents. Under such circumstances, it is to be accepted that the deceased Mooganaika has married applicant during his lifetime. Therefore, the trial Court held that the evidence on record clearly show that the deceased defendant No.6 during his lifetime married the applicant. Therefore, she is the wife of deceased defendant No.6 and in view of the same, she becomes the Class I legal heir of deceased defendant No.6. Admittedly, there is no issue to deceased defendant No.6. The applicant has filed the application within the period of limitation. Therefore, she is entitled to brought on record as legal representative of deceased defendant No.6. Accordingly, the application-I.A.No.5 filed under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure came to be allowed. 10. The material documents clearly depicts that though the relationship of the applicant and 6th defendant was disputed by plaintiffs in a suit for partition, the other defendants 1 to 5 who are members of the joint family have not disputed the said fact. Coupled with that, in view of the dispute raised by the plaintiffs, the applicant has taken pain to examine four witnesses and to produce documents. The trial Court considering the entire material on record both oral and documentary evidence has held that the applicant is the legal representative of the deceased defendant No.6 and allowed the application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure. The same is in accordance with law. The petitioners have not made out case to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.