SUBE SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. SHANTI & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit for declaration has been filed by respondent no.1 before the trial Court against the present petitioners for declaration to the effect that she is co-owner in the suit land more fully described in cause title of the plaint to the extent of 1/6th share.

(2.) During the pendency of the suit, respondents nos. 2,3 and 4 filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC (Annexure P1) for their impleadment as party in the suit averring, therein, that Baldeva whose inheritance is in dispute died issueless and the respondent no.1 claims herself to be his legal heir. It was further averred that suit property is co-parcenary property and they (respondents Nos. 2,3 or 4) being sons of Kesav are also legal heirs of Baldeva deceased and, therefore, they are also owners and occupants of suit land to the extent of 1/4th share of the land that was left by Baldeva in equal shares. They further averred that respondent no.1 (plaintiff) intentionally did not make them party to the suit and now when they learnt about the pendency of the suit, they have filed the present application, wherein, they claimed that they are necessary and effective parties and matter in controversy cannot be adjudicated sans their impleadment. Consequently, they prayed for their impleadment as defendants in the suit.

(3.) This application, on the other hand, was opposed by the petitioners by filing written reply, thereto, averring, therein, that Baldeva had duly executed release deed in favour of Amardeep. The respondents nos. 2, 3 and 4 have no right, title or interest in the suit land. They are, therefore, neither necessary nor proper party to the present suit. They further averred that Baldeva executed release deed in favour of Amardeep and the respondents are not legal heirs of Baldeva. They further averred that Amardeep - petitioner no.2 did not get the land in question in inheritance, but he got the same by way of release deed. It was also averred that the present application has been filed by respondents nos. 2 to 4 at the instance of respondent no.1 with intention to prolong the matter in question. The pendency of the suit was well within the knowledge of the respondents nos. 2 to 4 and they have colluded with respondent no.1 with ulterior motive, as they have an evil eye on the property in question.