GIRIDHAR GOPAL Vs. RAMAWATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This Civil Miscellaneous Application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dtd. 24/3/2018 passed in Title Suit No. 144 of 2011 by learned Sub Judge II, Danapur whereby the learned Court below allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) and Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'C.P.C.') and directed that the applicant Smt. Ramawati Devi (respondent No.1) be added as a party-defendant in the suit.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit being Title Suit No. 144 of 2011 for declaration that suit land described in Schedule-I of the plaint was joint family property of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 to 10 and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 did not have a right to sell the same and the land sold by defendant Nos. 2 to 4 in favour of defendant No. 1 by a registered deed of sale dtd. 16/3/2011 having no effect and the same may be set aside. The defendants (except defendant Nos. 2 to 4) filed their written statement. The issues were framed and three witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff were examined. The petition dtd. 9/8/2017 filed on behalf of Smt. Ramawati Devi under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) and Sec. 151 of the C.P.C. with prayer to add her as defendant in the suit as she is necessary party stating that the suit property is the ancestral property of the father of the intervenor-petitioner namely Sudarshan Singh and after his death she is legal heir of her father's property because he has no male issue and the plaintiff also conceded in his cross-examination that Sudarshan Singh has two daughters but he has not made party to them in the suit. The said impleadment petition was objected by the plaintiffs on the ground that the suit is mainly for declaration that alleged deed of sale dtd. 16/3/2011 executed by defendant Nos. 2 to 4 in favour of defendant No. 1 is void-ab-initio, fraudulent, forged, fabricated and purchaser defendant No. 1 did not acquire any right and title over the property and accordingly intervenor-petitioner is not a proper and necessary party in the suit. However, the said impleadment petition has been allowed by the impugned order dtd. 24/3/2018.