RAJNISH KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE PILIBHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two petitioners are plaintiffs in suit No. 96 of 1977 pending in the file of the Munsiff of Pilibhit. The suit was for eviction of respondent No. 2 on the ground that respondent No. 2 was merely a licencee under the petitioners and as the licence had already been revoked, he had no right to continue to remain in possession of the disputed property. According to the petitioners, the shop in question marked ABCD in the map attached to the plaint, originally belonged to respondent No. 2 and by virtue of a registered deed of sale, dated 24-5-1967, respondent No. 2 sold the said shop to the petitioners. However, from the date of sale, i.e. 24-5-1967, respondent No. 2 was allowed to remain in possession of a portion of the shop marked OPQR within ABCD. Respondent No. 2 filed his written statement and, inter alia, pleaded that the father of the petitioners from whom he had taken a loan of Rs. 300.00 had obtained the sale deed from him by fraud and undue influence. Respondent No. 2 also denied that he was living in the disputed premises as a licensee under the petitioners. During the pendency of the suit respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 who are sons of respondent No. 2, filed an application under O. 1, R. 10, C.P.C. praying for impleadment on the ground that the property in dispute was ancestral property and that respondent No. 2 was not competent to dispose it of on their behalf as they were minors on the date of the sale and that the sale deed had not been executed for any legal necessity. The trial Court rejected the impleadment application of respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 mainly on the ground that the suit filed by the petitioners was primarily based on the assertion of the petitioners that the relationship between them and respondent No. 2 was that of licensor and licensee and that, therefore, the suit could not be treated as a title suit. Respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 filed a revision against the order of the trial Court and the revisional Court allowed the revision set aside the order of the trial Court and directed impleadment of respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 as defendants in the suit. It is this order of the revisional Court (Annexure 3) which is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that petitioners as plaintiffs had the right to choose who the defendant should be and that their suit being simply based on the relationship between the petitioners and respondent No. 2 as that of licensor and licensee, the revisional Court acted wrongly in deciding that respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 should be impleaded as defendants in the suit. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on three decisions of this Court in Mohd. Ayaz Khan v. IInd Addl. District Judge, 1978 All CJ page 66; Maqsood Ali Khan v. Shabab Khan, 1981 All LJ NOC 105 and Dr. D. P. Singh v. Second Additional District Judge, Lucknow, 1982 All CJ 354. In the first case it was held that names of defendants 1 to 4 who were merely pro forma defendants and against whom no reliefs had been claimed in the suit had been rightly struck off by the trial Court as they were not necessary parties to the proceedings. In the second case it was held that in a case where the plaintiff had brought a suit impleading all the necessary parties, and he did not want the trial of his suit to be bogged down in a detailed investigation of matters extraneous of mortgage, he could not be compelled to have those irrelevant matters investigated in his suit based on the mortgage. In the third case it was, inter alia, held that in a regular suit filed under the provisions of the specific relief act only that person might be impleaded as a defendant against whom relief was claimed by the plaintiff.

(3.) The principles decided in the aforesaid three decisions of this Court are not applicable to the facts of this case. Here, as pointed out by the revisional Court, the sale deed dated 24-5-1967 (paper No. 19 Ka) on which the petitioners have founded their claim to title, was signed by respondent No. 2 for himself as well as for and on behalf of his minor sons, respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5. On consideration of the facts of the case and relevant case law, the revisional Court has held that respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are necessary parties and must be impleaded as defendants to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon all the questions involved in the suit. The order impugned does not at all call for interference and is upheld.