PRITAM SINGH Vs. SADHU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 8.11.1979 passed by District Judge, Ambala who dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff-appellants Pritam Singh and Surjit Kaur.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Pritam Singh and Surjit Kaur filed a suit for possession of houses bearing No. 879, 881 and 882 and workshop bearing No. 880 situated in Ward No. 4, Circular Road, Ambala City and for recovery of moveable property i.e. lathes, oil engines etc. as lying in the workshop and fully enumerated in the list attached to the plaint as Appendix 'A'. In the alternative, the plaintiffs claimed Rs. 8,000/-being price of the moveable articles. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that Bhagat Singh deceased was the real brother of the plaintiffs and he was the owner of the said property. Bhagat Singh deceased separated himself from defendant No. 1 Sadhu Singh in the year 1957 and he died issueless leaving behind his widow Ajmer Kaur, who succeeded him. It is pleaded that Ajmer Kaur, widow of Bhagat Singh and sister-in-law of the plaintiff died issueless on 14.6.1965. Plaintiff No. 1 claims himself as the only legal heir and successor of the property left by Bhagat Singh deceased and Ajmer Kaur deceased. It is alleged by plaintiff No. 1 that he wanted to take the possession of the suit property but Amar Singh, father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 resisted the delivery of the possession of the property by alleging that he was holding the suit property as general attorney of Ajmer Kaur. The case of the plaintiffs further was that power of attorney of Amar Singh came to an end after the death of Ajmer Kaur and plaintiff No. 1 has become the legal heir and successor of Bhagat Singh and Ajmer Kaur.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants, who raised the preliminary objection that Surjit Kaur sister of plaintiff No. 1 was necessary party to the suit in whose absence the suit cannot proceed. This objection of the defendants was upheld vide order dated 25.11.1970 passed by the trial Court. As to the effect of plaintiff No. 1 not joining Surjit Kaur, his sister, as co-plaintiff with him in the suit, the matter was kept in abeyance for enabling the plaintiff No. 2 to take any objection. The plaintiff No. 1 since amended the plaint by adding Surjit Kaur as defend ant No. 2. The defendants also raised the objection that plaintiff No. 1 did not earlier implead plaintiff No. 2 as a party and, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.