SUNEHRI Vs. BHAGWAT DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.9.1993 passed by the Sub-Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 610/92 allowing an application filed by the applicants who are legal heirs of late Prem for adding them as parties in the suit.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction which was registered as Suit No. 610/92. The plaintiffs who are petitioners herein stated in the plaint that their predecessor-in-interest Shri Ram Kumar was adopted by Smt. Javitri Devi who inherited a share of the offerings in the temple known as "Sri Kalkaji Temple." It is stated in the said plaint that there are three sub-set in Thula Tansukh, each having one anna share out of the three annas and in the said Thula Tansukh one subset is called Ramsi Dodu set to which the plaintiffs and the defendants belong to and are members of the said subset. It is also stated in the plaint that Thula Tansukh is having one anna share out of which plaintiffs are entitled to two paise shares and two paise shares is to be enjoyed by defendant Nos. 5 to 17. It is also stated in paragraph II of the plaint that as far as defendants 1 to 4 are concerned they have no right to enjoy the same but they have been recovering 6 pies shares out of one anna share and out of remaiting 6 pies, 2 pies are enjoyed by the plaintiffs and 4 pies are enjoyed by the defendant Nos. 5 to 17. It is also contended that the said division of shares is altogether illegal and was on account of the fact that adoption of Sh. Ram Kumar husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of defendant No. 2 was disputed and challenged. In paragraphhs 12 it is stated that Shri Ramsi @ Dodu from whom the plaintiffs claimed their rights and their ancestors were having two sons namely Bakhtavar and Sh. Nandan, who dies issueless and, therefore, after the death of Shn Nandan, Shn Bakhtavar was entitled to his share and after the death of Shri Banktavar his son Sh. Mam Raj who become entitled to his share. Sh. Mam Raj was having two sons namely, Sh. Molar and Sh. Deep Chand and as Sh. Deep Chand died issueless. It is Sh. Molar who inherited the aforesaid share. After the death o^ Sh. Molar, his widow Smt. Javitri Devi was entitled to share of the offerings etc. It is stated in paragraph 13 of the plaint that Sh. Ram Kumar was although the son of Sh. Ramji Lal who was the natural father of Shri Ram Kumar, however, Sh. Ram Kumar was adopted by Smt. Javitri Devi, therefore, after the death of Smt. Javitri Devi her share devolved upon Shri Ram Kumar. Shri Ram Kumar, however, expired, therefore, it is the plaintiffs who are widow and minor son of Sh. Ram Kumar are entitled to the share of Sh. Ram Kumar.

(3.) During the pendency of the aforesaid suit an application came to be filed by the applicants praying for adding them as parties in the suit as they are necessary parties to the suit. In the said application it was contended that the applicants are necessary parties in the aforesaid proceedings inasmuch as the applicants also belonged to Ramsi @ Dodu of Thula Tansukh and that the said applicants have 6 pies share in the subset of Rarnsi Dodu of Thula Tansukh which claim is also upheld by the decisions of various Courts including the High Court and the Supreme Court. It is stated in the application that in order to effectively and completely adjudicate the issues in the suit proceedings all the applicants are necessary and, therefore, they are to be impleaded in the suit.