TARSEM KAUR Vs. MEHALL SINGH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiff -Appellant has filed this appeal against the order of the Additional District Judge, Jullundur, dated 7th of September, 1979, whereby the decree of the trial Court in favour of the Plaintiffs has been set aside and the case has been sent bank to the trial Court with the direction that the Plaintiffs be given an opportunity to amend the plaint so as to join the other co -sharers as Plaintiffs.

(2.) SHRIMATI Harnam Kaur, Charan Kaur (Since deceased) and Tarsem Kaur filed a suit against Mehar Singh Defendant for possession of the site along with three shops on the ground floor and 8 rooms on the upper storey comprised in Khasra No. 1041 on the allegations that the constructed portion, as stated earlier, belongs to the Plaintiffs having been inherited from Thakar Singh deceased. Tarsem Kaur is the daughter while the other two ladies w -re the widows of the deceased Thakar Singh. It was alleged that the property in dispute was rented by the Plaintiffs to Capt. Rattan Singh who left the same about 5 years back and the Defendants in connivance with the said tenants entered into possession of the property in suit without the consent of the Plaintiffs. It was, however, further stated that the Plaintiffs bad a right to sue against Defendants as trespassers and the other co -sharers were not necessary parties though it was made clear that this suit would be for the benefit of other co -sharers as well. The suit was contested on behalf of the Defendant Mehar Singh, inter alia, on the ground that Darshan Kaur and other co -sharers were necessary parties inasmuch as their inclusion as parties will avoid the multiplicity of litigation. On merits, it was dented that the Plaintiffs are the owners of the suit land. The Defendant further pleaded (bat he had built and occupied the property in dispute for more than TO years as owner and his possession was adverse and has ripened into ownership. On the pleadings of the panics, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellant contended that even one co -sharer is competent to file a suit against a trespasser without impleading the other co sharers as parties to the suit. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Ganga Ram and Ors. v/s. Relu : AIR 1933 Lah 999, Ram Niranjan Das and Anr. v/s. Loknath Mandal and Ors. : AIR 1970 Pat 1, Sundarammal v/s. Sadasiva Reddiar etc. : AIR 1959 Mad 349 and Gopal Singh v/s. Mehnga Singh, 1968 PLR 515. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Defendant -Respondent contended that this proposition as such is not applicable to the facts of the present case because, according to him, the Defendant is not a mere trespasser. He has further claimed himself to be the owner of the property by adverse possession. He referred to Kanakarathanammal v/s. Loganatha Mudaliar and Anr. : AIR 1965 SC 271 and Rajabibi and Ors. v/s. S. Amir Ali and Anr., AIR 1974 Kar 115, in support of the proposition that all the co -owners must be joined in such a suit.