Non-impleading of co-sharers in a property dispute renders the suit not maintainable, as per the decision in Kanakarathanammal v. Loganatha Mudaliar, AIR 1965 SC 271.

( 1 ). This is a second appeal by the legal representatives of the first defendant against the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Bangalore in R. A. 45 of 1969, reversing the decree passed by the Munsiff, Ramanagaram in O. S. No. 171 of 1966.

( 2 ) THE first respondent-plaintiff instituted the suit for a declaration that he is the owner of the suit property and for permanent injunction or in the alternative for possession and for cancellation of the khata in respect of the suit site made by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant and for an appropriate direction to the second defendant to change the khata of the suit in the name of the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property belonged to one Syed Yedulla. He died in the year 1944. His further case is that on his death, his two sons Syed yacoob and Syed Mohammed became the owners of the suit property and were in possession of the samp. It is further averred that the said two brothers sold the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on the 15th of june, 1960. It is his further case that the second defendant the Municipality did not change the khata in spite of his request and maintained khata in the name of the first defendant. Though there is also a prayer for injunction, the prayer that was pressed by the plaintiff was the praver for declaration of title and possession and not for a permanent injunction the first defendant resisted the suit on various grounds. While admitting that Syed Yedulla was the original owner of the suit property, he contended that Syed Yedulla and his wife conveyed the suit property and another property in favour of one Syed Bakar on the 10th of august, 1942 and that the said Syed Bakar in turn sold the suit property to the first defendant on the 20th of June, 1954, under the sale Ext. D1. The case of the first defendant is that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property ever since he purchased the same from Syed Bakar. The court of first instance dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. On appeal, the learned Civil Judge has made a decree in favour of the plaintiff declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and directing the first defendant to deliver possession along with mesne profits. He has directed enquiry regarding mesne profits under Order 20, Rule 12 (1) (c) of the CPC. It is the said decree that is challenged by the legal representatives of the first defendant.

( 3 ) THE first contention that was urged by Shri Kadidal Manjappa, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, is that the suit is not maintainable in the absence of the other co-sharers. It has come in evidence that Syed Yedulla died in the year 1944 leaving behind him his widow, his two sons Syed Yacoob and Syed Mohammed and two daughters. The widow died a couple of years thereafter, leaving behind her two sons and two daughters. As Syed Yedulla was admittedly the owner of the suit property. on his death it is not only the two sons that could succeed to his estate. His wife as well as his two daughters would also become sharers. It is, therefore, clear that immediately-after the death of Syed Yedulla not. only his two sons but also his widow and two daughters have inherited the propertv as co-sharers. As far as these facts are concerned, they are not in challenge before me. The plaintiff has claimed exclusive title In himself to the suit property on the basis of the sale deed executed by syed Mohammed and Sved Yacoob on the 15th of January 1960. The plaintiff has not filed the suit for and on behalf of the other co-sharers. It is now the admitted position that the first defendant was in possession of the suit propertv on the date of suit. In view of these circumstances, it was contended that the suit as now brought without impleading the other co-sharers is not maintainable. The Supreme Court has in Kanakarathanammal v. Loganatha Mudaliar, AIR 1965 SC 271, held that when there are other co sharers in respect of the sui

Click Here to Read the rest of this document