HOSHIAR SINGH: Vs. GURNAM SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jarnail Singh son of Hari Singh was owner of some property situated at village Khanpur, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. During his life time, he married twice. Two issues were born from his first marriage i.e Gurnam Singh plaintiff and Gurnam Kaur daughter. After the death of his first wife, he married Mohinder Kaur and two daughters Charanjit Kaur and Sharanjit Kaur were born. Jarnail Singh died on 11th April, 1984. The present suit was filed by Gurnam Singh for a declaration to the effect that he and defendant No. 1 are owners-in-possession of the land belonging to Jarnail Singh to the extent of 1/2 share, on the basis of registered will alleged to have been executed by Jarnail Singh on 28th June, 1983. During the pendency of the suit, petitioner Hoshiar Singh filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure for impleading himself as defendant to the suit. He alleged in the application that he had purchased a part of the property from Jarnail Singh i.e. father of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 on 14th June, 1976 vide registered sale deed. The application was contested by the plaintiff on the ground that the land alleged to be covered under the said sale deed was earlier mortgaged with one Ibrahim and after the same was redeemed, it was again mortgaged with the Land Mortgage Bank.

(2.) Learned trial Court, after observing that the plaintiff is master of the suit and against the wish of the plaintiff, the petitioner cannot be impleaded as defendant.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the respondent. I find that the learned trial Court has acted illegally in exercise of its jurisdiction in dismissing the application of the petitioner. Plaintiff is claiming himself to be the owner of 1/2 share of the land belonging to his father Jarnail Singh whereas the petitioner is alleging that he has purchased a part of the property from Jarnail Singh vide registered sale deed. When a declaration is sought by the plaintiff, then the presence of the petitioner becomes more important because he in turn is also claiming to be the owner of the property belonging to Jarnail Singh. In case the suit is decided in his absence, then certainly it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings.