BISHMA DEVI Vs. CHATRU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment, decree dated 2.8.1999 passed by District Judge, Shimla in Civil Appeal No. 53 -S/13 of 1996 partly accepting the appeal against the judgment, decree dated 8.8.1996 passed by Sub -Judge 1st Class, Court No. 1, Rohru in Civil Suit No. 26/1 of 1991.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that respondent No. 2 had filed a suit for possession regarding land comprised in khasra Nos. 60, 224, khata Khatauni No. 68 min/142, Chak Anu, Tehsil Rohru. The respondent No. 1 was impleaded principal defendant No. 1 whereas appellants were impleaded as proforma defendants 2, 3 in the suit. The further case of respondent No. 2 in the suit was that she along with appellants is owner of the suit land. The respondent No. 1 taking undue advantage of the illiteracy of respondent No. 2 and appellants recently took possession of the suit land and in collusion with field staff got recorded the possession over the suit land. It was pleaded that the appellants could not be impleaded as plaintiffs in the suit and as such, they were impleaded proforma respondents in the suit. The respondent No. 2 in the suit prayed decree for possession of the suit land in her favour.

(3.) THE substantial questions of law No. 1 and 2 can be conveniently disposed of collectively, therefore, both the substantial questions of law are taken up for disposal together. The respondent No. 2 in the plaint has pleaded that she and appellants are the owners of the suit land, appellants could not be joined as plaintiffs in the suit and, therefore, they have been impleaded as proforma defendants. There is no averment in the plaint that the suit has been filed for the benefit of appellants also. The prayer in the plaint also confines to decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff. The respondent No. 2 had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for impleading Smt. Bishma Devi as plaintiff in the suit. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on 6.8.1993. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 8.8.1996, no doubt decree was passed in favour of respondent No. 2 as well as appellants. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of appellants in absence of any prayer of respondent No. 2 nor were appellants impleaded as plaintiff in the suit. The trial Court granted relief to appellants beyond the scope of the suit.