NAWAB SINGH Vs. OMPAL SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM Nos. 11941 -42 -CII of 2011

(2.) PETITIONER has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 28.2.2011, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Palwal, vide which application filed by him under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Code') for impleading him as a party in a suit filed by respondent No. 1 -plaintiff against respondents -defendants No. 1 and 2, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner -applicant, learned counsel for contesting respondents and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court.

(3.) SUIT was contested by respondent -defendant No. 2 by taking the plea that neither the plaintiff, nor defendant No. 1 is having right in the property in dispute and rather he is in possession of the property in dispute to the extent of 1/3rd share and that his father is owner in possession of the remaining 2/3rd share. Plea has been taken that plaintiff and defendant No. 1 already relinquished their 1/3rd share each in the house in dispute in favour of his father Nawab Singh in the year 2004. Hence, an application was also filed by present applicant, who is father of respondent -defendant No. 2 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code for impleading him as a party in the suit on the plea that he is having 2/3rd share in the property in dispute and plaintiff and defendant No. 1 had already relinquished their share in the property in dispute in his favour in the year 2004. His request was declined by learned trial Court by observing that transfer of property can be done only by way of written document like sale deed, relinquishment deed and gift deed etc. and that however, no such document has been produced. It has also been observed that admittedly applicant transferred his share in the property in dispute in favour of his son, i.e., defendant No. 2 on 22.7.2008 by way of registered sale deed and that in the said registered sale deed also it has not been averred that he is absolute owner of the suit property and that he was transferring only his 1/3rd share in favour of his son. The said sale deed is dated 22.7.2008, i.e., much after the alleged settlement in the year 2004. Hence, it has been observed that applicant is neither a necessary nor a proper party for the decision of present suit.