FAQIR SINGH Vs. SARWATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In order to determine the precise questions which arise for consideration before this Court, it is necessary to have a brief look at the facts of the instant case.

(2.) Plaintiff Smt. Sarwati Devi widow of Mansa Singh, respondent No. 1 before this Court, instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that she was owner-in-possession of the disputed land and the decree obtained by Jaswant Singh and other defendants was based upon fraud etc. and. therefore, not binding upon her. The trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 21.9.1987. On the same day another that suit filed by Jaswant Singh and other defendants to the suit of Smt. Sarwati Devi for permanent injunction restraining her from alienating the suit land was dismissed by the trial Court. Two appeals were filed by the aforesaid Jaswant Singh etc. Faqir Singh and other applicants who are appellants in these two appeals filed applications under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as parties in the aforesaid-mentioned two appeals either in addition Sarwati Devi or by way of substituting her on the ground that she executed a registered sale deed dated 8.10.1987 in their favour. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Suit. Sarwati Devi denied the execution of the sale deed and contended that it was she who was in possession of the disputed land as owner. Both the applications were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge with the following observations :

(3.) In these two appeals filed before this Court, the counsel for the parties have addressed arguments at great length. Mr. Viney Mittal, learned counsel for the appellants, has argued that the reasoning advanced by the first appellate Court is untenable inasmuch as the appellants having acquired the ownership rights under a sale deed are entitled to protect their own title. It was further argued that Smt. Sarwati Devi may not collude with Jaswant Singh etc. and compromise the matter thus affecting their rights in the property in dispute. The learned counsel has further argued that in view of the denial of the execution of the sale deed, the Additional District Judge should have held some sort of inquiry, may be, a summary one in order to come to a prima facie conclusion, regarding the validity of the sale deed for judging whether the appellants deserve to be impleaded as parties. It has further been argued that even if the execution of the document is denied, the same is no ground for dismissing the applications.