LAWS(MPH)-2019-1-49

DEEPAK KUMAR SAXENA Vs. NIRMALA DEVI & ORS

Decided On January 08, 2019
Deepak Kumar Saxena Appellant
V/S
Nirmala Devi And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 3.8.2016 passed by First Civil Judge, Class II, Bhind in Civil Suit No.61A/2015 by which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC for impleading him as a party in the suit has been rejected.

(2.) The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that the respondent No.1 has filed a civil suit against the respondents No.2 and 3 for declaration of title and permanent injunction. It is the case of the respondent No.1 that the father-in-law of the respondent No.1 had purchased the land in dispute by an unregistered sale deed dated 17.11.1952 from Badri Prasad S/o Sunderlal (the petitioner claims to be the grand son of Badri Prasad) for a consideration of Rs.97/- and got the possession thereof. After the death of the father-in-law of the respondent No.1, the mother-in-law of the respondent No.1 inherited the said property. By registered "will" dated 8.8.2003, the said property was given to the respondent No.1. The mother-in-law of the respondent No.1 has expired on 8.10.2005 and in view of "will" dated 8.8.2003 the respondent No.1 is the owner and in possession of the land in dispute. It is the case of the respondent No.1 that the Municipal Council, Bhind, is treating the respondent No.1 as an encroacher and, accordingly, he has been asked to vacate the premises raising cloud on the ownership of the respondent No.1, therefore, a suit was filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

(3.) The petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC alleging that the so called sale deed as claimed by the respondent No.1 in paragraph 2 of his plaint purportedly executed by Badri Prasad (grandfather of the petitioner) by an unregistered sale deed dated 17.11.1952 in favour of late Suratnarayan Chaudhary (father-in-law of the respondent No.1) is a forged document and the respondent No.1 wants to grab the government land by creating the forged documents.