RAMKARAN Vs. SHRIKISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the defendant Ramkaran in a suit for declaration and injunction.

(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are like this: A suit was instituted by the appellant in a revenue court for declaration and injunction against the respondents in respect of certain agricultural lands situate at villages Harbhagatpura and Indokhiya. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal by the appellant, the appellate court set aside the trial court's judgment and decreed the suit. The respondents, who are seven in number, went in second appeal to the Board of Revenue. The latter allowed the appeal, restored the trial Court's judgment and dismissed the suit. The appellant thereafter filed a writ petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the decision of the Board of Revenue. All the seven respondents were impleaded as non- petitioners in the writ petition. The notices of the writ petition were served on all the respondents. One of the seven respondents, namely, Hardev engaged Mr. C. L. Agarwal, Advocate, to represent him in the writ petition vide Vakalatnama Ex. 1. None of the remaining respondents engaged any lawyer to represent them in the writ petition. Shri Kishen, respondent No. 1, signed the reply to the writ petition. That reply is Ex. A/1 on the record and it bears signatures of Shrikishen as well as Mr. C. L. Agarwal on behalf of all the seven respondents though Mr. Asarwal was engaged for respondent No. 7 Hardev alone. Shrikishen, respondent No. 1, also filed his affidavit in support of his reply to the writ petition. That affidavit is marked Ex. A/2 on the record. The writ petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court on 30-8-1962. Mr. P. N Datta, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant Ramkaran, and Mr. C. L. Agarwal appeared on behalf of the opposite party. The plea of the respondent Shrikishen before the revenue Court was that the lands in dispute were mortgaged in his favour and Chandra on 2-2-1942 by the father of the appellant and, later on, those lands were sold to him on 14-81947 for Rs. 945/-. In support of the above plea, Shrikishen produced mortgage and sale-deeds before the revenue Court. Dealing with the writ petition, their Lordships vide judgment dated 30-8-1962 (Ex. 3) held that the sale dated 14-8-1947 was void as it was made in contravention of the provisions of Section 16 (1) of the Jaipur Tenancy Act. As regards the mortgage-deed dated 2-2-1942, their Lordships held that a khatedar tenant was competent to alienate his land by way of mortgage in certain circumstances. Having arrived at the above findings, their Lordships disposed of the writ petition in these words :

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of case. There is no manner of doubt that the only person on whose behalf Mr. C. L. Agarwal filed his vakalatnama in the writ petition before the High Court was respondent No .7 Hardev. The plaintiff-respondents neither signed any vakalatnama in favour of Shri C. L. Agarwal nor they authorised him to act or plead on their behalf. Five out of the six plaintiff-respondents have appeared in the witness-box as P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, and have deposed that they did not engage Mr. C. L. Agarwal in the High Court as their advocate. They have further stated that they also did not authorise him to enter into any compromise or agreement on their behalf. P. W. 4 Hardev has deposed that he engaged Mr. C. L. Agarwal. Advocate, on his own behalf vide vakalatnama Ex. 1 which bore his signatures. He has further deposed that he had no authority to engage Mr. C. L. Agarwal on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents. The lower appellate Court on consideration of the evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that Mr. C. L. Agarwal was appointed in the High Court to represent respondent Hardev and not plaintiff-respondents. The learned counsel for the appellant laid considerable stress on the reply filed in the writ petition which was signed by Mr. C. L. Agarwal on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents and Hardev. It is significant to note that Mr. C. L. Agarwal has not been produced in evidence to explain how he signed the reply on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents when he was engaged by Hardev alone. It appears to me that Mr. C. L. Agarwal signed the reply representing the plaintiff-respondents under misapprehension that he had been engaged by all the non-petitioners in the writ petition. In the absence of any evidence, oral or documentary, to show that the plaintiff-respondents had, in fact, appointed or engaged Mr. C. L. Agarwal as their counsel, his signatures on the reply on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents, carries no meaning in the eye of law. The learned counsel for the defendant-appellant also drew my attention to the review petition which was filed by Mr. C. L. Agarwal on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents. That is also of no consequence as he was never engaged on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents to file review petition. The review petition therefore cannot be taken to have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents. My attention was then drawn to the affidavit of the plaintiff-respondent No. 5 Jagdish wherein he has stated on oath that the writ petition was argued on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents and Hardev by their advocate Mr. C. L. Agarwal on 30-8-1962. This admission, at the best, binds Jagdish respondent No. 5 and not the other plaintiff-respondents.