SUDARSHAN KUMAR MAHAJAN Vs. SHAMMI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 782, 853 and 921 to 924, all of 1994, as the question which arises for consideration therein is common. The petitioner has filed these petitions against the impugned orders whereby his petitions filed under Order 1 Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, have been dismissed.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that petitioner's father Harbans Lal filed a suit for rendition of accounts against Union of India and others on the allegations that a Muslim evacuee left behind a garden and Industrial establishment No. 2 at Gurdaspur on the partition of the country. There was no demarcation between the compounds of industrial establishment No, 2 and the garden. The garden was allotted to Smt. Balwant Kaur and Industrial establishment No. 2 was leased out in open auction to Harbans Lal's son Sudarshan Kumar vide order dated October 9, 1964 Exhibit P1. Later on, allotment of the garden to Smt Balwant Kaur was cancelled by the Rehabilitation Department and Industrial establishment No. 2 being the evacuee property was transferred to Harbans Lal in lieu of compensation of the property left by him in Pakistan. Balwant Kaur filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was also dismissed. Thus, the property allotted to her was reverted and vested in the Central Government and her possession and that of her transferees of the said property became illegal. Thereafter they were liable to pay damages/rent/compensation etc. to the Government. Harbans Lal claimed possession of the compounds attached to Industrial establishment No. 2, which was also claimed by Balwant Kaur, being its allottee. Dispute arose between the two. Harbans Lal filed a suit for specific performance of agreement against Union of India, which was decreed in his favour. He was also held entitled to occupy Industrial establishment No. 2, which meant three rooms and compounds, outer alignment of the plot being 50' x 40'. Union of India was realising rent/damages/compensation from the illegal occupants of the property allotted to Balwant Kaur. Hence Harbans Lal filed a suit for rendition of accounts. The suit was decreed on July 16, 1984.

(3.) IN this petition Sudarshan Kumar alleged that the suit property is part of Industrial establishment No. 2 allotted to Harbans Lal Mahajan. The plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the same because allotment in favour of Balwant Kaur was duly cancelled. Harbans Lal died on January 31, 1991, and Sudarshan Kumar applicant is his only legal heir and representative by virtue of Will dated August 8, 1988. He averred that in order to adjudicate and settle the dispute of the suit property, it is necessary that he should be impleaded as a defendant.