JARNAIL SINGH Vs. MOTA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no interference is called for in this appeal although for reasons other than stated by the District Judge. The appellants filed a suit against three defendants to claim possession of 18 Kanals of agricultural land. The trial Court found that defendants 1 and 2 were in possession of 2 Kanals and decreed the suit for possession qua 2 Kanals. The third defendant was in possession of 16 Kanals. The suit against the third person was dismissed on the finding of that he was tenant of 16 Kanals under the plaintiffs. Defendants 1 and 2 filed appeal before the District Judge to have the decree of the trial Court regarding 2 Kanals set aside on the plea that they were tenants of those 2 Kanals and the finding of the trial Court to the contrary was erroneous. In that appeal defendants 1 and 2 impleaded only the plaintiffs as the respondents. The respondents in that appeal (plaintiffs) filed cross- objections under Order 41, Rule 22 of the C.P.C. to claim relief against the 3rd defendant and in cross-objections the 3rd defendant was impleaded as a party.

(2.) The District Judge held that appeal of defendants 1 and 2 was incompetent as the 3rd defendant was not shown in the array of parties as a respondent. The District Judge committed a grave error of law in coming to this conclusion in view of AIR 1970 Supreme Court 108 and AIR 1971 Supreme Court 742. Defendants 1 and 2 did not claim any relief against the 3rd defendant and, therefore, he was proforma and, it was not necessary to implead him and the appeal filed by defendants No. 1 and 2 against the plaintiffs was competent. In spite of reversing the decision of the Court below on this matter the case of the plaintiffs who filed cross-objections against the 3rd defendant does not improve in view of AIR 1974 Karnataka 21. The plaintiffs could file cross-objections only against the appellants who were before the District Judge. Against the 3rd defendant, if the plaintiffs wanted relief, they had to file an independent appeal. They did not do so.

(3.) For the reasons recorded above, the cross-objections filed by the plaintiffs against the 3rd defendant were not competent.