MANGAL BHIKAJI NAGPASE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. The question raised in this second appeal is as to whether the interpleader suit filed by the original plaintiff was tenable and further whether in that suit, the plaintiff could challenge the title of his original landlord and derivative title of the respondent No. 2 Bhopalsingh Khatod.

(2.) A suit came to be filed by the plaintiff mangal Bhikaji Nagpase (appellant herein) under section 58 and Order 35 of the Code of Civil procedure, in respect of plot Nos. 127/3, 129/2 and 129/4, - sheet No. 15, Block No. 40, Nazul ward-Bhanapeth, Chandrapur. In that suit, original defendant No. 2 Bhopalsingh Khatod (respondent No. 2 herein) filed two applications, being Exhibit 20 and Exhibit 28, and the plaintiff had filed an application for amendment of the plaint, vide exhibit 32. The trial Court held on the applications made by respondent No. 2 that there was no cause of action in favour of the appellant/plaintiff to file the suit and the suit was untenable and barred by law as the filing of the suit amounted to the denial of title of the landlord by the plaintiff. The plaintiff s application (Exhibit 32) for the amendment was also rejected. In the result, the trial Court dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal only with the modification that it did not dismiss the suit and instead ordered that the plaint was liable to be rejected and was rejected under the provisions of Order 7, rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) THE plaintiff had contended that he was the tenant in respect of the property described above and that the property was originally owned by one nagama, and after her death, came to be recorded in the name of one Munnabai as the holder. His further case was that the said property then came in the hands of one Moreshwar Kisanlal Khatri who had claimed that the said Munnabai was a dancing girl by profession and she had adopted one Chinna sani, and the said Chinna Sani was the keep of moreshwar s father. The plaintiff then claimed that it was Moreshwar who had inducted him as the tenant and the defendant No. 2 Bhopalsingh had purchased the property from Moreshwar under a sale-deed. However, the plaintiff claimed that moreshwar could not have a saleable interest though he had inducted the plaintiff as a tenant. He, therefore, contended that Moreshwar could not pass a valid title to Bhopalsingh as he himself could not have inherited the property, since munnabai could not create an adoption and could not have adopted Chinna Sani who was the keep of moreshwar s father. At any rate, if the property passed to Chinna Sani, it could not have been inherited by Moreshwar and the property was liable to be escheated under the provisions of the Hindu law. It was also pointed out that there was a revenue Case under section 34 of the Maharashtra land Revenue Code commenced before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chandrapur, vide Revenue Case no. 2/109/79-80, and, therefore, there were two claimants claiming against each other, in respect of the ownership of the suit property and as such on that ground, an interpleader suit was filed.