ANNDA RAM Vs. MUNNALAL & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two applications (I.A. No. 5242/2013 and I.A. No. 6149/2013) under Order I, Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC have been filed by the appellants seeking impleadment of (i) Shri Chain Singh S/o Late Shri Babu Lal Gehlot and (ii) Smt. Asha Mukul Agrawal W/o Shri Mukul Mahavir Agrawal as party respondents in the first appeal.

(2.) It is, inter alia, indicated in the application that late Shri Annda Ram filed an original civil suit on 14.08.2000 for cancellation of the sale deed dated 30.05.1990 executed by the respondent No.1 in favour of the respondent Nos. 2 to 50; during pendency of the suit Shri Annda Ram expired and his legal representatives were taken on record; the suit was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2005 and the present first appeal is pending final hearing; it is further indicated that respondent No. 44 Shri J.T. Bopat S/o Shri Shriram sold the plot Nos. 107 and 108 to Smt. Puni Bai and plot Nos. 106 and 109 to Smt. Seema Gehlot W/o Shri Chain Singh; Smt. Puni Bai on the basis of the sale deeds applied for conversion of the land as Abadi and got Patta of the plot Nos. 107 and 108; however, on appellants' interjection Smt. Seema Gehlot could not get the Patta; Smt. Puni Bai expired in August, 2012 and her son Shri Chain Singh on the basis of Will, executed by Smt. Puni Bai, wanted to transfer the plot Nos. 107 and 108 to one Shri Mukul Mahavir Agrawal and plot Nos. 106 and 109 as husband of Smt. Seema Gehlot to said Shri Mukul Mahavir Agrawal and, in this regard, a notice seeking objections was published in the newspaper, which was replied by the counsel of the appellants, to which, a further reply was given by counsel for Shri Mukul Mahavir Agrawal; it is alleged in the application that inspite of the notice and the fact that Shri Chain Singh is well aware of the present litigation and the status quo order passed by this Court from the very beginning being nephew of the appellant No. 1, he started raising construction on plot Nos. 106 and 109 and when he was told not to do so, on the pretext that since he is not a party in the appeal he is not bound by the interim order, refused to follow the same and, therefore, it is necessary to implead Shri Chain Singh as party; it is, inter alia, submitted that Shri Chain Singh is necessary and proper party in the present first appeal, otherwise, multiplicity of proceedings may arise and, therefore, in the interest of justice, he may be impleaded as a party.

(3.) A detailed reply has been filed on behalf of said Shri Chain Singh Gehlot opposing the applications; it is, inter alia, submitted that before filing the suit on 14.08.2000 it was well within the knowledge of the plaintiffs that late Smt. Puni Bai, who was daughter of late Shri Annda Ram, had purchased plot Nos. 106 and 109 through four registered sale deeds from defendant No. 44 Shri J.T. Bopat, which sale deeds were registered on 17.04.1996, 15.11.1995, 22.02.1996 and 17.04.1996 respectively and, after purchasing these plots, Smt. Puni Bai mother of non-applicant Shri Chain Singh covered the same by stone patties and also got electricity and water connections; it was well within the knowledge of late Shri Annda Ram that Smt. Puni Bai was in possession of the aforesaid plots much prior to the date of filing of the suit and, despite such knowledge, Smt. Puni Bai was not made a party to the suit and, therefore, the appellants cannot be permitted to implead Shri Chain Singh, who is legal heir of Smt. Puni Bai, as party; in respect of plot Nos. 107 and 108, which were converted and lease deeds were duly registered on 25.01.2003, the appellants were well aware about the fact of issuance of Patta in favour of Smt. Puni Bai on 25.01.2003, however, no efforts were made by the appellants to implead Smt. Puni Bai as party to the suit; it was further indicated that the non-applicant was not bound by any order passed in the appeal and was free to transfer the plots and, therefore, he has executed three separate registered sale deeds in favour of Smt. Asha Mukul Agrawal on 25.10.2013 in respect of plot Nos. 106, 108 and 109, which sale deeds were registered on 28.10.2013 and sale regarding one plot could not be executed as the same was mortgaged with financial institution; however, possession of the four plots has already been handed over to the purchaser on 17.10.2013 at the time of agreement to sale; several averments relating to the conduct of the appellants and seeking to raise plea of estoppel have also been made, inter alia, indicating the instances where the appellants and/or other close relatives have purchased the plots from several of the transferees, who have been impeaded as party defendants in the suit; it is also alleged that plot Nos. 106 to 109 are situated just in front of appellant No. 1 Jugraj's house and appellants are well aware about the fact that Smt. Puni Bai purchased these plots in the year 1995-96; it is further submitted that no explanation on behalf of the appellants as to why Smt. Puni Bai was not made a party to the suit has been indicated; ultimately, it is submitted that the appellants cannot be permitted to implead the non-applicant as a party at such a belated stage without any proper explanation for not impleading his mother as a party to the suit, whereas, the fact of purchase of aforesaid plots was well within the knowledge of the appellants since beginning and much prior to the date of filing of the suit.