The genuineness of a Will affecting shares must be adjudicated in the partition suit.

Gowramma instituted a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties.

After her death, a legatee claiming under a Will sought impleadment to prosecute the suit.

The petitioners, defendants 3 and 4, challenged the trial court’s order allowing impleadment, arguing that the legatee had earlier withdrawn an application under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC and could not subsequently seek impleadment under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC.

They also challenged an order permitting amendment of the plaint after trial had commenced.

The petitioners invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227.

Order I Rule 10(2) CPC permits the addition of a person where the relief sought is legally maintainable and that person’s presence is relevant to the effective adjudication of the dispute; an application is not to be rejected solely because it was presented under an incorrect provision.

The Court relied on Shri Ganesh S/o Vaiju @ Vijay Kurbet v. Smt. Gangawwa @ Laxmi Vaiju @ Vijay Kurbet, W.P. No. 106399 of 2026, dated 31 August 2026, for the principle that where a Will is relied upon in a partition suit, its genuineness should be adjudicated in that proceeding because it bears directly on the parties’ shares.

The Court also considered whether the trial court’s exercise of discretion to allow amendment was arbitrary or caused serious prejudice warranting supervisory interference.

The legatee asserted that Gowramma had bequeathed her interest in the suit properties.

Because the Will’s validity and effect could affect the determination of the parties’ shares, the Court considered it appropriate to resolve that controversy in the pending partition suit rather than require a separate suit, which could lead to multiplicity of proceedings or conflicting findings.

The earlier withdrawal of the Order XXII Rule 4 application did not, by itself, make the later impleadment application legally untenable; nor was the application to be rejected merely because it was brought under a particular provision.

As to amendment, the proposed changes included typographical corrections and an additional plea.

The Court found no arbitrariness or serious prejudice sufficient to justify interference, while preserving the petitioners’ opportunity to respond by filing an additional written statement.

The petitioners were granted liberty to file an additional written statement in response to the amended pleadings.