ANAND SOOD Vs. KANAK DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties are on loggerheads on the question of addition of party before the court below. The respondent No.1/ plaintiff filed a suit for partition, permanent injunction and possession. Earlier, the said suit was dismissed by the court below against which FA No. 6/1993 was filed before this Court. By judgment dated 24.02.1999 the appeal was allowed in part and the decree was modified to some extent. The matter was remitted back before the trial court. The order of first appeal got a stamp of approval from the Supreme Court in SLP No. 5696/2007 (Annexure P/8). During the pendency of said suit, the petitioner / applicant preferred an application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. (Annexure P/3). In para 3 of said application he described the family tree and stated that his mother Shyamlata was daughter of Durga Prasad and therefore, he is entitled to 1/4 share of the property. It is stated that property in question is HUF property and therefore, the applicant is a necessary party in the suit. Other side filed reply to the said application (Annexure P/4) and prayed for its rejection. Court below by the impugned order dated 07.10.2014 rejected the said application which is called in question in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) Shri Santosh Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner, submits that court below has erred in rejecting the said application. The applicant is a necessary party and delay cannot be a ground for rejecting the said application. Other reasons assigned by the court below were also critisized by Shri Agrawal. He relied on (Prema Vs. Nanje Gowda and Ors., 2011 6 SCC 462), (Sukhram Vs. Sarju Bai and Ors., 2005 2 MPHT 44 ), ( Rajesh Vs. Keshar Singh and Ors., 2012 1 JabLJ 285) and (Ranchhod and Ors. Vs. Ramchandra and Anr.,1994 1 VIBHA 162).

(3.) Per Contra, Shri V.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate supported the order passed by the court below. By taking this Court to Annexure P/4, it is argued that applicant cannot get any right because the right of daughter is created in the year 2005 by way of amendment in Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Whereas, admittely, Durga Prasad died prior to the said amendment and suit was also filed prior to the said amendment. He supported the order passed by the Court below. He relied on (Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. State of M.P. & Anr., 2011 AIR(SC) 1989), ( Mumbai International Airport Private Ltd. Vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Ltd. and Ors., 2010 7 SCC 417) and 2014 AIR(Bom) 151.