RAM KALI Vs. UJALA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAM Kali, Plaintiff, has directed this revision petition against the order dated 26th November, 1986 of the Subordinate Judge I Class, Hansi, allowing the impleading of Mst. Santro as a Defendant in suit filed by Mst. Ram Kali, Petitioner, against her grand -father Ujala.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that Mst. Ram Kali, Petitioner, filed a suit for declaration against her grand -father Ujala to the effect that she is the owner of the land measuring 104 Kanals situated in village Ghirai, Tehsil Hansi on the basis of family settlement and that the Defendant has no concern with the land in dispute, besides that she is entitled to get the mutation of the land sanctioned in her favour. In the said suit, aforesaid Ujala Defendant admitted the claim of the Plaintiff, - -vide his statement dated 11th September, 1984. During the pendency of this suit, Mst. Santro widow of Randhir the only grand -son of Ujala Defendant filed an application -for impleading her as a party contending that through a family settlement, aforesaid Ujala had already transferred the property in dispute to his only grand -son Randhir, - -vide civil suit decided on 20th May, 1977. She also referred to the false and baseless suit filed by aforesaid Ujala after the death of her husband in order to restrain her from alienating the property in dispute and for getting a mutation sanctioned in her favour. This application was resisted by Mst. Ram Kali Plaintiff by denying that Mst. Santro being the widow of Randhir, or the earlier settlement between Ujala and aforesaid Randhir. It was also alleged that the previous decree dated 20th May, 1977 based on fraud and mis -representation is only a paper transaction.

(3.) MR . C. B. Goel, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, by relying upon the findings of this Court in Banarsi Dass Durga Parshad v. Panna Lal Ram Richhpal Oswal and Ors. : A.I.R. 1969 P&H 57, Bimla Devi of Hissar v. Municipality Hissar through its Administrator, 1983 H.R.R. 249, Naib Singh and Anr. v. Sada Ram and Ors., 1985(2) C.L.J. 374 and Bara Hanuman Temple Durgian, Amritsar v. Gurbax Lal Malhotra and Ors. : A.I.R. 1978 P&H 192, contended that as no relief was claimed against Smt. Santro, she was neither a necessary party nor her presence was required for effectively adjudication of the controversy in the suit. Mr. Surinder Gandhi, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 also supported the view of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. He further superimposed his arguments by placing reliance on the findings in Vassudev R. Nhavelkar v. Vishnum Atmaram Gaude and Anr., A.I.R. 1976 Goa 58. Mr. S. N. Singal, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2, on the other hand, supported the findings of the trial Court by relying upon the findings of the Supreme Court in Razia Bequm v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and Ors. : A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 886, as well as of this Court in Gokal Chand and Ors. v. Puran and Ors., 1978 P.L.R. 403. He also placed reliance on the findings of this Court in Banarsi Dass's Case (supra), which was relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.