C S VEDI Vs. KIRPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs application under Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure for striking out part of written statement Filed by defendants 3 & 4 to be unnecessary.

(2.) "" Defendants 3 & 4 were allowed to be impleaded as necessary partics to the suit by virtue of an order passed on 9.2.1987 in IA 2811/85. The order is under challenge in appeal stated to be still pending before the Division Bench.

(3.) Plaintiff has claimed a decree in the suit against defendant No.1. In the suit, which virtually is a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 19.4.1972, prayers made in the plaint are to declare that the irrevocable power of attorney executed by defendant No.1 in plaintiffs favour, special power of attorney dated 19th April, 1972 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and the Will dated 19th April, 1972 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff continue to subsist and the registered document executed by defendant No.1 on 30.3.1982 purported to cancel of the same is null and void. Declaration is also sought that the plaintiff is owner and in possession of the suit land and to direct defendant No.1 to comply with the requirements of law for effecting transfer of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and further directing defendant No.l not to interfere in plaintiffs possesion in the property, in any manner, whatsoever. Defendants 3 & 4 were allowed to be impleaded on the basis of averments made by them in their application (IA 2811/85) alleging that the plaintiff has transferred all his rights in respect of the suit property in their favour on the basis of agreement dated 27.4.1975. The order passed on 9.2.1987 deals with the respective; stand of the plaintiff and defendants 3 & 4. It was observed that defendants 3 & 4 have a prima facie case in their favour that they had become the nominees of the plaintiff and stand in the shoes of the plaintiff in respect of the subject matter of the suit. Admittedly defendants 3 & 4 are in possession of the property. Defendants 3 & 4 were held to be necessary parties to the suit and since the plaintiff had refused to implead them as co-plaintiffs, they were directed to be added as codefendants in the suit.