GOURI SHANKER Vs. JABBAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the plaintiff's revision against the order dated September 27, 1982, passed by the Munsiff, Bhinmal, whereby he allowed the application of Jabbar Singh, non-petitioner No. 1 under Or. 1, Rule 10, C. P. C.

(2.) THE plaintiff petitioner instituted a suit against the Municipal Board, Bhinmal, with the allegation that the plaintiff is the owner of plot measuring 11,429 Sq yds, situated in town of Bhinmal. THE original owner thereof was one Solanki Jivaji Jorji and the plaintiff purchased that land from one Bhairushan-kar on Bhadwa Sudi 7, St 2026, for a sum of Rs. 81/ -. Since then he is in possession of the suit p!ot. THE plaintiff further averred that the Municipal Board, Bhinmal, invited applications for leasing out that land for industrial purposes and about nine persons have deposited earnest money along with the applications. THE plaintiff sought a relief of injunction to the effect that the Municipal Board be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the plot in question. THE Municipal Board submitted its written statement denying the plaintiff's title and possession over the plot in question. On 7. 1. 1980 Jabbar Singh, non-petitioner No. 1, submitted an application under Or. 1, R. 10, C P. C. stating that in the past the plot in question was owned and possessed by Jagirdar Guman Singh and Ajit Singh and on Phalgun Sudi 3, St. 1993 Guman Singh had sold that land to Jabbar Singh's grand father Ranjeet Singh. His ancestors and he were and is in possession of the plot since the date of its purchase. An allegation of collusion was also made by Jabbar Singh on the ground that the parties to the suit agreed for appointment of the Receiver.

(3.) IN Ramesh Chandra vs. Mukhtyar Singh (2) a declaratory suit was instituted that the sale-deed executed by defendants No. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant No. 3 be declared null and void against the plaintiff as the suit property belonged to him. The plaintiff also claimed relief of possession. One Mohan Lai filed an application under Or. 1, R. 10, C. P. C. , on the ground that the suit property belonged to him and was in his possession and that the plaintiff was neither the owner of the suit property, nor was in possession. An allegation of collusion was also made in the application. The parties to the original suit contested the application. The trial court however, allowed the application. The defendant came in revision. The revision petition was allowed and the order of the trial court was set aside on the ground that in case the intervener is impleaded as a party, the result would be that the defendant petitioner will have to contest the suit against the two plaintiffs and will have to show that both of them are not owners and in possession of the suit property. It was further observed in that case that the controversy, which has been raised by the intervener, would be totally foreign to the controversy in the suit between the plaintiff Himmat Singh and the defendant. It was also observed that the controversy, which is required to be determined in the suit, is the controversy between the original parties to the suit only.