HAWA SINGH Vs. LAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of two second appeals from orders 23 of 1996 and 22 of 1997 in which a common question of law arises. S.A.O. No. 23 of 1996

(2.) CHHOTA defendant 2 (now deceased) was the owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 13 kanals 5 marlas and a house as described in the head note of the plaint in village Kalkha Tehsil Panipat. He had two sons Banwari and Lal Singh. Hawa Singh defendant 1 is the son of Banwari. Lal Singh filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the agricultural land and the house was given to him and Banwari to the extent of 1/2 share each in a family settlement in the year 1971. It is averred that portion of the house marked ABCD shown in the map attached to the plaint also fell to his share. It is further averred that a writing in the presence or the respectables of the village was also executed at the time of the family settlement. Chhota deceased suffered a decree on 12.4.1982 in favour of Hawa Singh in civil suit 228 of 1982. It is pleaded that this collusive decree was obtained with a view to harm the interest of the plaintiff. Lal Singh also challenged this decree as null and void and not binding on him. It has also been alleged that Chhota was not the owner of the property at the time of the decree and that the decree which involved property worth lacs of rupees required compulsory registration. The suit was filed against Hawa Singh (defendant 1) and Chhota defendant 2. During the pendency of the suit Chhota expired and his legal representatives were brought on the record.

(3.) WHETHER the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD