Dismissed

Subhash v. Nar Singh & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Sept 2014CR/3494/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged an order impleading respondents as necessary parties in a property suit. The High Court upheld the lower court's decision, holding that applicants claiming co-sharing rights and possession based on revenue records are necessary parties despite the plaintiff's exclusive possession claim.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; impugned order setting aside the impleadment of respondents is upheld.

Subhash Vs Nar Singh & Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

213

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CR No.3494 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: September 04, 2014

Subhash

...Petitioner

Versus

Narsingh and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr.Devender Punia, Advocate for respondents No.6 and 7.

¶12

¶13

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

¶14

Petitioner Subhash has filed this revision petition against Narsingh and other respondents under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 15.05.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar.

¶15

It is mainly stated in the petition that the order dated 15.05.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar is untenable to law, contrary to the proved facts of the case and is liable to be set aside. Learned Judge has committed material illegality and irregularity and has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it.

¶16

The brief facts of the case as stated in the petition are that VINEET GULATIthe petitioner filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction 2014.09.17 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

CR No.3494 of 2012

¶18

-2-

¶19

restraining respondents/defendants No.1 to 5 from interfering into peaceful possession of land measuring 34 kanals 8 marlas and also to restrain respondents from demolishing kotha constructed on the suit land and further restraining respondents from creating any obstruction or hindrance in reconstructing the wall on the southern side of the suit land and installing gate and from blocking the passage. Respondent No.5 appeared and filed written statement stating that they have no claim or concern with the suit land. During the pendency of the proceedings of the suit, respondents No.6 and 7 filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading them as a party. Reply was filed by the petitioner and learned Civil Judge after hearing the parties, ordered that respondents No.6 and 7 be impleaded as defendants vide impugned order dated 15.05.2012.

¶20

Notice of motion was given to respondents No.6 and 7, who appeared through their counsel and contested the petition.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

¶22

From the record, I find that two applications have been filed, one by Sunder Singh and another by Anil Kumar for impleading them as party. In the application filed by Sunder Singh, it is averted that plaintiff has filed a suit titled as ‘Subhash vs. Nar Singh and others’ regarding restraining the defendants from interfering and interrupting in his possession over land measuring 34 kanals 8 marlas, which suit is false and collusive and plaintiff has wrongly shown the entire suit land to be possessed by him but in fact, the

¶23

VINEET GULATI 2014.09.17 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶24

CR No.3494 of 2012

¶25

-3-

¶26

applicant is also one of the co-sharer in suit land as his fore-fathers were Biswedar of the village and as such, he being a co-possessor, has every right to be impleaded in the present suit. In the application filed by Anil Kumar, he also taken similar ground stating that the suit land was owned and possessed by grandfather of the applicant namely Singha Ram as Hasad Rasad Kabja and the entries in the revenue record are in his favour and the plaintiff has filed the present suit in collusion with other persons.

¶27

Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar vide order dated 15.05.2012 after going through the revenue record and the law accepted these applications. The Court held that jamabandi for the year 2002-03 shows that in column No.12, Fard Badar 9 is mentioned. A perusal of the Fard Badar 9 shows that during preparation of jamabandi for the year 1974-75, a mistake was detected in the khasra girdawari for the year 1966-67 and that has been corrected by incorporating name of Chandu Lal. This Fard Badar 9 has been sanctioned in the year 2010. Chandu Lal has died in the year 1996. The plaintiff relied upon the corrections of khasra girdawari and the perusal of the proceedings show that Chandu Lal was not party to those proceedings. Chandu Lal was father of the applicant Sunder Singh. The Court held that applicant being successor of another cosharer, is a co-sharer and if the applicant is not impleaded then findings in the decision may effect the rights of the applicant. Learned Civil Judge also discussed regarding the application of Anil Kumar, which is on similar ground whose grandfather Singha Ram was party

¶28

VINEET GULATI 2014.09.17 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶29

CR No.3494 of 2012

¶30

-4-

¶31

in correction of khasra girdawari proceedings. In Fard Badar, there is also mention of name of father of this applicant.

¶32

Keeping in view the findings of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar vide order dated 15.05.2012, in no way, it can be held that present applicants are not necessary or proper party in the present suit. Both the applicants are stating that they are in possession of some of the portion of the suit land and they are relying upon entry in Fard Badar and alleging that plaintiff has filed the suit in collusion with the defendants and plaintiff is not in exclusive possession over the suit land and the applicants also are alleging that they are co-sharer in the suit land.

¶33

Learned counsel for the respondents No.6 and 7 has cited judgment passed by this Court in Inder Singh and another vs. Joga Singh and others, 2010 (5) R.C.R. (Civil) 381 , in which it is held that plaintiff claiming exclusive possession of the suit property whereas the applicants praying to be impleaded as necessary parties claiming to be the co-sharers and in possession of part of the suit property and applicants held to be necessary parties and allowed to be impleaded. I have gone through this cited judgment and the same fully applies to the facts of the present case.

¶34

On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited judgment passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Ramesh S/o Sharma Kumbhar & Anr. Vs. Sudhakar S/o Budha Kumbhar & Ors. 2013(3) CCC 384 . I have gone through this cited judgment and the same having distinguished facts will not apply in the present case. VINEET GULATI 2014.09.17 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶35

CR No.3494 of 2012

¶36

-5-

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner further cited judgment passed by this Court in Jagjit Singh vs. Ajit Lal & Anr., 2013(4) CCC 757 . This cited judgment also having distinguished will not apply in the present case as that case was regarding eviction proceedings and during pendency of the appeal against eviction order, an application was filed for impleadment of party on the ground that applicant is co-owner and in that circumstance, the Court held that co-owner is not a necessary party, which is not the fact in the present case.

¶38

In view of the above, I find that the impugned order dated 15.05.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar is correct and as per law and the same is upheld.

¶39

Therefore, finding no merit in the present revision petition,

¶40

the same is dismissed.

¶41

September 04, 2014 Vgulati

¶42

(INDERJIT SINGH) JUDGE

¶43

VINEET GULATI 2014.09.17 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Subhash v. Nar Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash v. Nar Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Ravinder Kaur Vs Ajaib Singh & Anr.

Jaibir Vs Sheela Devi

Rajpal Vs Mukesh and Anr.

Ritu Verma and Anr. Vs Ramesh Kumar and Ors.

Bhagat Singh Vs Anurag Properties & Ors.