JUDGMENT - S.G. MAHAJAN, J.:---Applicants M/s. Samrat Furniture and other six, who are the plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No. 1936 of 1991, have filed the present revision petition challenging the order of the Vth Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, passed on 30th July, 1999 below Exhibit 90, whereby the learned Judge deleted the Issue No. 1, which was as regards the ownership of the plaintiff firm in relation to the suit property.

2. The above said civil suit filed by the applicants plaintiffs is for the declaration and permanent injunction. The case of the applicants-plaintiffs is that the property situated on 15, Farm Land is the property belonging to plaintiff No. 1 firm (M/s. Samrat Furniture). The plot was purchased in the name of the firm and with the funds of the firm and the construction thereon was also made with the funds of the firm. The further contention of the applicants-plaintiffs is that the non-applicant/defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff-firm and contended that he was the absolute owner of the portion of the property, which was allotted to him.

3. The trial Court framed the issues. One of the issues framed was ---

"Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit property is belonging to plaintiff No. 1 firm?"

4. After the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs was recorded and when the evidence on the side of the defendant was to commence, the defendant presented an application Exhibit 90 for deleting the aforesaid issue. It is averred by the defendant (present non-applicant) in the above mentioned application that the plaintiffs have instituted the above suit seeking the reliefs (1) To pass a decree of declaration that the defendant has no right or authority whatsoever to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff-firm of the ground floor portion of the building constructed on 15, Farm Land, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur, or to remove the two platforms from the said portion or to erect fencing on the said portion; (2) To pass a decree of declaration that the defendant has no right or authority whatsoever to let out any portion of the ground floor on 15, Farm Land, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur, and (3) To grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his servants, agents, etc. from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff-firm of the ground floor portion of the building on 15, Farm Land, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur, and from removing the two platforms and from erecting any fencing on the said portion as also from letting out any portion of the said building to anybody. The submission of the defendant in the above mentioned application Exhibit 90 is that the plaintiffs have not sought the relief of declaration that the plaintiff-firm is the owner of the suit property and, therefore, it is beyond the scope of the suit to decide the title. The further submission of the defendant is that for the determination of the title, the plaintiffs would have to pay the requisite Court fee and since the valuation would exceed Rs. 1 lac, the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, would not have the jurisdiction to try the suit. On the above grounds, the defendant prayed for striking out the issue as regards the ownership of the plaintiff-firm.

5. The learned trial Judge, by the order, which is impugned in this revision, deleted the issued, as aforesaid. While ordering the deletion of issue, the Judge gave the reasoning that the defendant, in his written statement at Exhibit 45, has admitted that the suit property was purchased in the name of plaintiff No. 1 firm, though he further contended that it was actually purchased by him and plaintiff No. 2 individually, but taking the advantage of his illiteracy, the plaintiff No. 2 got registered the sale-deed of the suit property in the name of plaintiff No. 1 firm. It is further observed by the learned Judge that the suit property being in the name of Plaintiff No. 1 firm, is an admitted position and the admitted facts, therefore, cannot come in issue by virtue of the provisi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document