BRAJA MOHAN NAIK Vs. CHAKRADHAR PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Munsif, Kuchinda, permitting withdrawal of the suit under Order 23, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure ('Code' for short).

(2.) OPPOSITE party No. 1 claiming to be the adopted son of Ramakrushna Patel and his wife Shrimati Patel and further claiming under a registered deed of gift executed by Shrimati Patel in his favour on 25 -10 -1957 in respect of the suit property consisting of house, homestead and agricultural land initiated a proceeding Under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Criminal Misc. Case No. 4 of 1975) in the Court of the Subdivisional Magistrate, Kuchinda, against the petitioners and the Predecessor -in -interest of opposite parties 2 to 8. In that proceeding, the suit property was attached Under Section 145(1) and the parties were directed to establish their rights in a competent Court. Thereafter, he instituted Title Suit No. 4 of 1977 and averred in the plaint that being the adopted son of Ramakrishna Patel and his wife Shrimati Patel and on the basis of the registered deed of gift dated 25 -10 -1957 executed in his favour by Shrimati Patel, he had acquired title and possession in respect of the suitproperty. He prayed for declaration of his right, title and interest in respect thereof. He valued the suit for the purpose of Court -fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 200/ - because, the suit was purely of a declaratory nature and paid fixed Court -fee of Rs. 22. 50.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the suit, opposite parties 9 to 16 filed a petition under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code. In that petition they denied the plaintiff's exclusive title and possession in respect of the suit property and called the deed of gift executed by Shrimati Patel in favour of opposite party No. 1 as a fraudulent and conditional one which was subsequently revoked According to them, one Mahabhangi, sister of Ramakrushna Patel, inherited the suit property as the sole living heir. After her death intestate, opposite parties 9 to 16 inherited the suit property and are the rightful owners thereof. Therefore, they claimed to be added as defendants in the suit. By order dated 24 -6 -1980 the learned Munsif allowed the petition under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code and directed opposite parties 9 to 16 to be added as defendants to the suit.