NARENDRA NATH KARMAKAR Vs. BATA KRISHNA KARMAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Concurrent findings of two Courts below were challenged in the present second appeal. By the Order dated April 18, 2000 the appeal was directed to be heard on the substantial question of law as formulated in the added grounds. The two added grounds were whether the Courts below erred in deciding the title of the parties relating to the transaction in question in a summary way in a suit for recovery of licence when the positive defence was a claim of a co-sharer along with other brothers and whether in view of the pendency of a revisional application for addition of another brother the Courts below erred in deciding the question of title of all the brothers.

(2.) The suit was for eviction of the defendant as licensee from the suit property. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The decree was passed on contested hearing. Evidence was adduced by the parties to the suit. The defendant preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed on contested hearing.

(3.) In the second appeal it was contended on behalf of the appellant that, the appellant was a co-sharer of the suit property. It was also contended that, the other brothers were necessary and proper parties to the suit and were not made parties to the suit and as such the suit suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties. On behalf of the appellant the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Court of Civil Procedure 1908 was relied upon. In that regard reliance was also placed on (Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum & Ors., 1958 AIR(SC) 886).