046-NLR-NLR-V-74-L.-R.-GUNASEKERA-Appellant-and-R.-A.-S.-PERERA-Respondent.pdf
Gunasebcra v. Percra
JC3
1971 Present: H. H. G. Fernando, C.J., and Tbamofheram, J.
R. GUNASEKERA, Appellant-, and R. A. S. PERERA, RespondentS. C. 43;GS {Inly.)—D. C. Colombo, 9072jPAppeal—Omission to join a necessary parly as respondent—Liability oj the appeal tobe rejected.
Failero of the appellant, in an appeal filed by him, to join na a respondent aparty who will bo adversely affected if tho appeal were to sucaood renders theappeal liable to be rejectod if objection is taken by a party-respondent-.
16 -l
H. N. G. FERNANDO, C. J.—Ounasckcra v- Ptrtra
Appeal from an order of the District Court, Colombo.
II. IF. Jayawardene, Q.C., -with Joe Weerasekera, for the defendant-appellant.
C. Runganalhan, Q.C., with IF. D. Gunaselera and K. Kanagaralnatn,for the plaintiff-respondent.
January 21, 1971. H. N. G. Fernando, C.J.—
In this action for partition the plaintiff allotted all the shares in theland to himself and the 1st to the 5th defendants. The Gth defendantfiled a statement of claim on the basis that the land belonged exclusivelyto himself and to the 16th and 17th defendants. After trial the learnedDistrict Judge rejected the claims of the Gth defendant and enteredjudgment holding that the land belonged to the plaintiff and to the 1stto the 5th defendants in the shares as stated in the plaint.
In the present appeal the 6th defendant has joined only the plaintiffas a respondent, although it is manifest that if the appeal were to succeedthe interests of the 1st to the 5th defendants would be completely aifectcd.The failure to join the 1st to the 5th defendants as respondents is-a defect of an obvious character which should have been foreseen.Following the judgments in D. A. Suwarishamy v.G. D. 2'helenis 1 andIbrahim v. Beebee2 I would uphold the objection taken by counselfor the plaintiff-respondent.
The appeal is rejected with costs.
THAMoriiERAjr, J.—I agree.
Appeal rejected.