(1.) This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been ffiled by defendants and is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class dated 17th April, 1970 by which the learned Judge decided issue No. 4 in (be negative and held that Ramjas College Society was not a necessary party and that the defendants could not lead any evidence to show that the land in dispate vested in the said Society and that the defendants were its tenants.
(2.) The brief facts of the case giving rise to the dispute are that Suraj Bhan, then a minor, acting through his guardian Deep Chand, took one shop and one Chabutra or open land from the plaintiff on or about 21st August, 1959 on a rent of Rs. 221.00 per month and he executed a rent-note on 5th March, 1960 in favour of the plaintiff. The said shop and Chabuter which are in his tenancy are not in dispute in the suit, but it is the land which is adjacent to the same which is the subject-matter of the dispute and the plaintiff had on 9th December, 1968 filed a suit which has given rise to this revision for a permanent injunction directing the defendants to quit the aforesaid land in dispute. The land in dispute was allegedly given to the contesting defendants on licence on or about 12th April, I960 under a writing purporting to have been executed by Deep Chand, the execution and validity of which is seriously challenged by the defendants. The plaintiff contends that the whole of the land in dispute is covered by the Chabutra, but without deciding this contention, I shall hereinafter refer to it as the land in dispute. On the other hand, the case of the defendants is that they took from Ramjas College Society the disputed and on rent measuring about 200 Square yards on 18th December, 1961 and another piece of 200 square yards on 26th December 1967at the rate of Rs.40.00 and Rs. 100.00 per month respectivel and the defendants allege that the lend in disput was never given to them by the plaintiff on licence and part of the land in dispute is covered by the tenancy of the plaintiff and the ether part is within the tenancy of the Ramjas Coliege Society. In the trial Court, the defendants denied that they had taken the land in dispute on licence from the plaintiff and they urged that Ramjas Collage Society was a necessary party which formed the subject-matter of issue No. 4 and the same has been treated as a preliminary issue and negatived by the trial Court and it has been agitated betore me agein.
(3.) The learned counsel for the parties Lave taken me through the pleadings of the parties as well a3 the documents on the file of the Court which have not yet been exhibited. The suit of the plaintiff is a simpel one. He has alleged that the land in dispute was given on lease and whether or not he had title to so let it out is irrelevant for the purposes of the suit and the defendants were estopped from challenging his title and that if the plaintiff failed to prove his case, he was to be non-suited and the claim of Ramjas College Society could not be agitated against his title in the present suit. Therefore the plaintiff has to succeed or fail in his suit on his own allegations and he cannot be called upon to prove his title against a third party, namely Ramjas College Society I he answer to issue No. 4 whether Ramjas College Society is a necessary party must, therefore, be found in the nagative and the learned ccunsel for the defendants petitioners could not successfully challenge the said finding of the trial Court before me. The attack of the learned counsel for the defndaDts was, however, directed against that part of the impugned order where the learned Judge has held that the defendants were estopped under sections 116 and 117 of the Evidence Act horn challenging the title of the plaintiff and that the evidence which the defendants might desire to produce in respect of the land in dispute belonging to the Ramjas College Society and having been let out by it to the defendants, is not relevant.