SANT SINGH Vs. LAXMAN CHOUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned is the Order dated 3rd of October' 2008 where under an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) Code of Civil Procedure (for short C.P.C) has been allowed and respondent Laxman Choudhary has been impleaded as party-defendant no.3 in the suit.

(2.) Suit for declaration captioned Sant Singh v. State & Anr., is pending before the Court of Sub Judge (C.J.M) Jammu, wherein declaration has been sought so as to declare the petitioner (plaintiff) as owner of the land measuring 75 feet x 120 feet covered by survey no. 78, situated in Sector A, Block-D, extension Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. The said landed property allegedly has been leased out by the plaintiff to Aparna Ashram through its founder President Shri Swami Dhirendra Bhramchari for a period of 99 years, vide lease deed dated 23rd of July' 1964. The said President allegedly died issueless. Then pursuant to Government Order No. 722-GAD of 1994 dated 19th of August' 1994, the defendant no.2 (Divisional Commissioner, Jammu) has been appointed as Nodal Officer by defendant no.1 (Chief Secretary). The said position prompted the plaintiff (petitioner herein) to file the suit with the prayer that he be declared a owner of the said property and that defendants i.e., Chief Secretary to J&K Government and Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, be directed to hand over the possession of the said property.

(3.) Respondent no.1 filed an application for being impleaded as party-defendant claiming therein to be the legal heir of late Swami Dhirendra Bhramchari as the same position is supported by a decree passed by the Court of Munsiff, Jammu on 11th of April' 2005. Learned trial Court has noticed the position of the said decree wherein respondent no.1 has been declared as legal heir vis-a-vis property mentioned in the schedule annexed thereto wherein the suit property does not figure. Learned trial Court (Sub Judge) has correctly noticed that it is a matter for trial to decide as to whether the office of President is heritable, whether the President has contributed for creation of assets in question and as such had any interest so as to determine the entitlement of respondent no.1 to inherit the same. Finally has rightly concluded that respondent no.1 is a necessary party.