LAKSHMI NARAIN Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE FATEHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against an order dated 2-8-1991, passed in Civil Revision No. 15 of 1991.

(2.) The brief facts are that one Janardan Prasad plaintiff-respondent No. 2 filed a suit in the Court of Munsif Fatehpur against the defendant-petitioner and defendant respondent Nos. 3 to 5, seeking declaration that he was the owner of the house denoted as 'As' in the map attached to the plaint and for cancellation of the sale deed executed by the petitioner defendant in favour of defendant respondent No. 3 in respect of a portion of that house. The case set up on the plaint was that the plaintiff and defendant respondent Nos. 2 and 4 namely, Niranjan and Hira Lal respectively, are real brothers and sons of one Narbada Prasad since deceased. Narbada Prasad and Sardar were the sons of one Jodha, a common ancestor who owned two houses shown with letters Aa and Ba in the plaint. Sardar died issueless. Narbada Prasad separated from his father during his life-time and was residing in house Ba along with Niranjan and Hiralal defendant Nos. 3 and 4. However, the plaintiff continued to reside in house Aa. After the death of Narbada Prasad as family settlement house 'Aa' was given exclusively to the plaintiff and house 'Ba' was given to his other two brothers defendant Nos. 3 and 4. It may be observed that these defendants were arrayed only as pro forma defendants who in their written statement have admitted the case of the plaintiff. However, the suit was contested by the petitioner-defendant and defendant-respondent No. 3. The defendant-petitioner denied the correctness of the pedigree given in the plaint and set up his own pedigree. He claimed that one Laxman had four sons, 2 of them were Jodha and Balloo. The plaintiff and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are the descendants of Jodha while the defendant-petitioner, Sukhdeo, Laxmi and Niranjan Lal who are brothers are the descendants of Balloo. According to the case of the defendant-petitioners the house in question was owned by Laxman and consequently, all the heirs of Laxman were the necessary parties to the suit. The trial court, it seems framed an issue to that effect being issue No. 4 and decided the same in the affirmative. The trial court directed the plaintiff to amend his plaint, accordingly, within the specified period, Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff respondent preferred a revision which was allowed by the impugned order. Challenging the order passed by the Revisional Court, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, in my opinion, the writ petition is devoid of all merits. The question that arises for consideration is whether the persons who were directed to be impleaded as defendants at the instance of the petitioner-defendant, were necessary parties for the decision of the suit and consequently, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with.