RAJA RAM SINGH Vs. KAPILDEO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Revision No. 1219 of 1981 and Civil Revision No. 1221 of 1981 arise out of the same order. They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Opposite Parties 1 and 2 filed title Suit No. 121 of 1975 in the Court of Subordinate Judge. Begusarai, against opposite parties 3 to 15 for partition of schedules A. B and C lands and also for carving a separate party of the plaintiffs by a pleader commissioner and thereafter for passing preliminary decree. It is desirable to mention just here that the petitioners in the instant two revision applications were not made parties in the title suit.

(3.) The aforesaid two revision applications are directed against order dated 2nd July. 1981 by which the applications filed by the petitioners of each case for being added as intervener-defendants have been rejected by the court below. Thus, the two sets of applicants who claimed to be added as intervener-defendants in the aforesaid title suit have filed separate revision applications. The court below by its impugned order, held as follows. Admittedly, there was a collectorate partition case 19 of 1926 and that two tauzis viz. 10038 and 10039 were carved out of the original tauzi 5005 having many co-sharer landlords. The plaintiffs and defendants of that suit were given delivery of possession of the lands of tauzi 10038 which was carved out of original tauzi 5005. The plaintiffs' father Ram Rachha Singh and the father of defendants second set Bhola Singh were applicant 9 which was an admitted fact. In that collectorate partition case. Raja Ram Singh (who is petitioner in Civil Revision No. 1219 of 1981) and late Shri Thakur Prasad Singh father of second set of intervener-defendants i. e. father of Ram Nandan Singh and Ram Naresh Singh) were applicant 10. These facts are admitted. Thakur Prasad Singh (father of the second set of intervener-defendants) and Raja Ram Singh (first set of intervener-defendants) opted to get joint patti of the lands in their shares of original tauzi 5005 and a separate tauzi 10039 was carved out accordingly. The delivery of possession with regard to the lands of tauzi 10038 was also given to the plaintiffs and the defendants. The present petitioners (who claim to be added as intervener-defendants) did not file any document to show as to when they came in joint possession of tauzi Nos. 10038 and 10039 when once partition took place. The defendants 1st party of the present suit (Title Suit No. 121 of 1975) filed a certified copy of the plaint of one Title Suit No. 18 of 1948. which shows that Shri Raja Ram Singh (petitioner in Civil Revision No. 1219 of 1981) the first set of intervener-defendant and Shri Thakur Prasad Singh (father of second set of intervener-defendants) had filed a title suit against one Matukdhari Singh one of the co-sharers landlords of orginal tauzi 5005. This shows that a separate tauzi 10046 had been prepared in the name of Matukdhari Singh and by this Title Suit No. 18 of 1948, the petitioner of Civil Revision NO, 1219 of 1981 and the father of the petitioners in Civil Revision No. 1221 of 1981 had pleaded earlier partition and were claiming the house belonging to Matukdhari Singh as having fallen in their tauzi 10039.