SANJIV GANPATI NAWAL Vs. SHAMRAO NAMDEORAO PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rejection of an application filed under the provisions of Order I, Rule 10 by strangers to the suit has given rise to this Civil Revision Application. Respondent No. 1 Shamrao Namdeorao Patil has filed a civil suit for specific performance against the original defendant Ganpati Kashiram Nawal. In this civil suit, a specific performance of the transaction of barter is being insisted upon by the plaintiff on the basis of an agreement dated 29-6-1982 between the plaintiffs and the defendant. In fact, both the plaintiff and the- defendants have put each other in possession of agricultural fields as per the transaction of barter and plaintiff claims to have made payment of Rs. 41,400/- towards the land. However, the defendant has avoided to execute the sale deed of his agricultural land and that gave rise to the filing of the civil suit which is registered as Special Civil Suit No. 153/1984.

(2.) The defendant, respondent No. 2 herein, has filed a written statement and has not disputed that the transaction of barter took place nor has he disputed the written agreement dated 29-6-1982. He also does not dispute the possession having been exchanged. The only exception that the defendant makes is to the adequacy of the amount of Rs. 41,400/-. The issues are struck on the basis of these pleadings alone. When the parties were to go to the trial on the basis of issues struck, two sons of the defendant, namely, Sanjiv s/o Ganpati Nawal and Prasad s/o Ganpati Nawal, filed an application under the provisions of Order I, Rule 10 claiming therein that the suit property belonged to the joint Hindu family and, as such, both the applicants had their share, by birth, in such property. They, therefore, prayed that they should be added as the defendants in the suit since they are interested in the said property, holding a right, by birth, in the said property. The said application came to be rejected by the trial Court necessitating the present revision.

(3.) Shri Nawandar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioners, strenuously urged that the addition of the applicants Nos. 1 and 2/the present revision petitioners was absolutely essential in order that all the questions involved in the suit should be effectively and completely adjudicated. It is the contention of the learned Counsel that in any event the applicants have a right to challenge the alienation made by their father who was acting as a Karta on the ground that the said alienation was not for the benefit of estate and in that event there would be multiplicity of the proceedings, and in order to avoid the said multiplicity of the proceedings, the Court should have allowed the present two applicants to be joined as party defendants.