RAKESH CHOUDHARY Vs. SAROJ AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 07.04.2014 passed by the trial court, whereby, his application under Order I, Rule 10 CPC for impleadment as party defendant has been rejected.

(2.) A suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by Smt. Saroj and Vinod seeking declaration regarding ownership of suit property based on partition dated 14.06.1967 and declaration regarding sale deeds dated 29.03.2007 and 18.08.2007 being void; the suit was filed claiming right as legal representatives of one Hari Singh; in the plaint it was claimed that Hari Singh was survived by Kishan Singh, Bheem Singh sons and Lata Singh daughter as his legal representatives; one son Vijay Singh had gone in adoption to his uncle i.e. brother of Hari Singh Bhagwat Singh and another son Man Singh had gone in adoption to his uncle Chain Singh brother of Hari Singh during the life time of Hari Singh and, therefore, both of them (Vijay Singh and Man Singh) had no right in the properties of Hari Singh. During the pendency of the suit, petitioner Rakesh Choudhary son of Vijay Singh filed an application for impleadment as party to the suit; it was claimed that Vijay Singh father of the applicant had not gone in adoption and after death of Hari Singh, he (Vijay Singh) was Karta Khandan; the properties of deceased Hari Singh, which is subject matter of the suit, are properties of Hindu undivided family and all the legal representatives of Hari Singh are entitled to 1/5th share each.

(3.) A detailed reply to the application was filed by the plaintiffs opposing the application for impleadment as party; it was, inter alia, submitted that Vijay Singh went in adoption to Bhagwat Singh during the life time of Hari Singh and Vijay Singh succeeded to the properties of Bhagwat Singh and after death of Vijay Singh applicant Rakesh Choudhary along with Jitendra Singh, Anand Singh, Uma and Sudha were in possession and enjoying the properties; it was submitted that the claim made in the plaint regarding Vijay Singh having gone in adoption was correct and made reference to several documents including suit filed in the year 1984 by Lata Singh daughter of Hari Singh for partition, wherein, it was averred that Vijay Singh has gone in adoption to Bhagwat Singh; sale deed dated 09.09.1985, whereby, Vijay Singh purchased property at Jodhpur, wherein, his name has been indicated as son of Bhagwat Singh; registered gift deed dated 30.08.1969 executed by Sumitra Devi wife of Hari Singh in favour of Man Singh and Bheem Singh, wherein, also it was indicated that Vijay Singh had gone in adoption to Bhagwat Singh and that only Kishan Singh, Bheem Singh and Lata were the legal representatives of Hari Singh; registered power of attorney dated 21.07.1976 executed by Vijay Singh in favour of Smt. Saroj Choudhary, wherein, Vijay Singh has been indicated as son of Bhagwat Singh; death certificate of Vijay Singh, wherein, he has been indicated as son of Bhagwat Singh and information obtained under the Right to Information Act from the State Government with whom Vijay Singh served, wherein, in the service record also Vijay Singh has been indicated as son of Bhagwat Singh; it was claimed that from the documents, it was apparent that Vijay Singh had gone in adoption to Bhagwat Singh and, therefore, the applicant has no concern with the properties of Hari Singh; with reference to the suit pending at Jaipur it was indicated that filing of the suit does not help the cause of applicant Rakesh Choudhary; ultimately, it was submitted that the applicant was neither necessary nor proper party to the suit and, therefore, the application be dismissed.