SINGHESHWAR RAI Vs. BABULAL RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application by the plaintiff is directed against an order of Munsif, East Muzaffarpur, allowing an application under Order 1, Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Civil P. C. filed by opposite party No. 2 Rameshwari Devi, for being added as defendant to the suit, and directing that she (be) added as defendant No. 2 to the suit.

(2.) The aforesaid suit was instituted by the plaintiff-petitioner for a declaration that the sale deed dated 3-4-1974 executed by defendant No. 1 Babu Lal Rai, who is opposite party No. 1 in this Court, in favour of the plaintiff was genuine, legal and valid and that the order of Collector dated 1-4-1975 passed under the provisions of Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act was without jurisdiction, null and void and did not affect the right, title and interest of the plaintiff. The sale deed dated 3-4-1974 was executed by Babu Lal Rai, defendant No. 1 who, according to the plaintiff's case was the son of Jatahu Rai who was son's son of Bhauchan brother of Dasain, father of the plaintiff According to the plaintiff, Babu Lal Rai succeeded to all the lands belonging to the Jatahu Rai after the death of his mother and that the order passed by the Collector holding the sale to be void, was null and void and without jurisdiction as the objection filed by the plaintiff that Babu Lal was not a privileged tenant was not considered. This suit was filed on 28-7-1977. On 7-2-1978, opposite party No. 2 filed a petition under Order 1, Rule 18 of the Civil P. C. alleging that she was daughter of Jatahu who had died in the year 1944 and after the death of her mother Bhagwatia in the year 1973 she was in possession of Bhagwatia's interest in the properties jointly with Babu Lal Rai who was of unsound mind and that the sale deed executed by Babu Lal Rai was a fraudulent document and without consideration. The application was opposed by the plaintiff-petitioner. The learned Munsif, East Muzaffarpur held that the presence of Rameshwari Devi in the suit was essential for considering and adjudicating upon all the issues involved in the suit effectively and completely as she had claimed interest in the suit properties and allowed the application as stated above.

(3.) Sri Pashupati Nath Jha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the court below had no jurisdiction to add opposite party No. 2 as a defendant when her joinder as opposite party was opposed by the plaintiff. In support of this contention he relied upon a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Motiram Roshan Lal Coal Co. (P) Ltd. v. District Committee, Dhanbad, (AIR 1962 Pat 357). In that case the order adding a certain person as a defendant was made merely on the finding that there was no harm if the petitioner was added as a defendant in the suit. It was not held and it was not suggested that the presence of the party added was necessary in order (to) enable the court below to effectively and completely adjudicate upon all the questions involved in the suit. Though at some places it was observed that the plaintiff cannot be compelled to add a person as a party defendant, it was also observed in that case that a person cannot be added as a party defendant against the wishes of the plaintiff unless a very strong case is made out. The case is, therefore, no authority for the proposition that merely because the joinder of a person as a defendant is objected to by the plaintiff, his application must be rejected. In Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum (AIR 1959 SC 886), the Supreme Court upheld an order of the court adding, a person as a defendant and observed that the joinder of a person as a defendant was within the jurisdiction of the court even though his joinder was seriously contested by the plaintiff. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court clearly negatives the contention that in no circumstance can a person be added as a defendant against the wishes of the plaintiff.