MEER SINGH Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this order I shall dispose of two applications one filed by Naresh Kumar, son of the defendant and other filed by Smt. Raj Rani, wife of Shri Jai Kishan, deceased son of the defendant seeking impleadment as defendants in this case.

(2.) The facts giving rise to filing of these two applications are that the property in suit i.e. Khasra No.8/1, 8/2, 311, 309, 321, 322, 323, portion of House No.VI, measuring 42 sq.yds. in length and 11 yards in width on the ground floor, two kothas and two bhukharies, half portion of property No.168 (measuring 3 biswas), Khasra No.7/1, 7/2, 247/2, 248/275 and two kothies of Poli a House No.6 and other portion of Plot No.166 measuring 3 biswas towards West, Khasra No.276, 277 and a Kotha on first floor towards West side and Khasra No.278 and one Kotha on first floor of House No.VI towards East side, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "suit property") was owned by Mam Chand, father of the defendant. After his death, the properties of Mam Chand were succeeded by his legal heirs, including the defendant. There has been a chain of litigation between the parties. A suit for partition was filed in between legal heirs of deceased Mam Chand. The said suit was compromised. In the suit, the defendant had given an undertaking that the shares of Naresh and Jai Kishan would be fully protected after the partition was effected. Both the applicants claim themselves to be co-sharers in their own right, in the suit premises which Amar Singh agreed to sell to the plaintiff. Number of cases are pending adjudication between the children of the defendant inter se as well as inter se the defendants. Since both the applicants claim their share in the suit property in their own right, these applications have been filed for their impleadment in the array of the defendants.

(3.) Both the applications have been contested by the plaintiff contending inter alia that applicants are neither the Bhumidar nor in possession of the land in dispute. Hence, they are neither necessary nor proper party to the present suit, that the applications have been filed by the applicants in collusion with the defendant, to avoid execution of the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff. Applicants, not being the Bhumidar of the land of the defendant, have no right, title, interest or possession in the land in dispute in view of Section 50 of Delhi Land Reforms Act. That the factum of said compromise was never disclosed by the defendant to the plaintiff and it was between the applicants and defendant and other family members, further he is not a party to any of the litigation between the applicants, the defendant and other family members, that as per the compromise in Civil Writ Petition No.279/89, suit property fell to the share of the defendant. After the said compromise, share of the defendant was mutually partitioned between the defendant and his sons and certain portion of the suit property had fallen to the share of Naresh Kumar and Smt. Raj Rani. Therefore, the applicants are neither necessary nor proper party to the present suit for its effective adjudication. Hence, the applications deserve dismissal.