ONKAR Vs. BIRBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading to this appeal are that Jai Narain, Birbal, Umrao, Bhagwana, Nathi and Jhabar had filed a suit against Onkar, Ramdev and Gopal (defendant Nos. 1 to 3 respectively and now appellants). The plaintiffs had prayed of a decree for declaration that they and the proforma defendant Nos. 4 to 7 were in possession of the suit land as co-sharers of shamilat Thok Roop Chand. They also prayed for permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos. 1 to 3 from interfering with their possession as well as that of proforma defendant Nos. 4 to 7 over the suit land. According to the allegations in the plaint, the various plaintiffs were separately in possession of separate parcels of the suit land detailed in plaint para No. 1 as co-sharers. With some of the plaintiffs, the proforma defendants were also said to be in possession. The contesting defendants is collusion with the patwari got themselves recorded in the revenue papers as cultivators of those parcels of land though they had never been in possession of them. Taking advantage of those wrong entries, the contesting defendants were trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants over the suit land.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the suit was bad for multifariousness. He pointed out that in plaint paragraph No. 1 it is alleged that plaintiff No. 1 is said to be in possession of land measuring 9 Marlas comprised in rectangle Nos. 29 Killa No. 19/6 while plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 4 are said to be in possession of land measuring 6 Kanals 12 Marlas comprised in rectangle No. 29 Killa Nos. 12/1 and 13/1 while plaintiff Nos. 2 to 6 are said to be in possession of land measuring 17 Marlas in equal shares comprised in rectangle No. 29, Killa No. 19/4. It is further alleged that plaintiff Nos. 2 to 6 are also in possession of land measuring 5 Kanals 4 Marlas comprised in rectangle No. 29 Killa No. 18/2 and 19/7 in which plaintiff No. 2 has half share and plaintiff Nos. 3 to 5 and defendant Nos. 5 to 7 have the other half while plaintiff Nos. 3 to 5 and defendant Nos. 5 to 7 are said to be in possession of land measuring 13 Marlas comprised in rectangle No. 29 Killa No. 19/3. He argued that from the above allegations it is clear that the different sets of plaintiffs are in possession of different parcels of land and one set of the plaintiffs has no concern with the parcel of the land said to be in possession of the other set of plaintiffs and defendants and the only common allegation is that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have no connection with those parcels of land and they threaten to take illegal possession. Therefore the question that arises is whether these plaintiffs could join in one suit.

(3.) Order 1 Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code deals with the joining of the plaintiffs in one suit. It reads as follows:-