Back
High Court Of Delhi
HARBANS SINGH - Appellant
Versus
E.R.SRINIVASAN - Respondent
Civil 199 of 1974
Decided On : 10/19/1978
IMPLEADING A THIRD PARTY AS A DEFENDANT - O. 1, R. 10 OF THE CIVIL P. C. - APPLICANT'S PRIMA FACIE CASE - NECESSITY OF PRESENCE FOR EFFECTIVE ADJUDICATION - COURT'S DISCRETION - DOMINUS LITUS PRINCIPLE.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, owners of a property in Karol Bagh, New Delhi, filed a suit for possession of a portion of the ground floor of the premises against one Srinivasan, alleging unauthorized possession. During the pendency of the suit, Ramanujam applied to be impleaded as a defendant, claiming to be the tenant of the property and alleging that Srinivasan had surrendered possession to him in 1972. The plaintiffs contested the application, denying Ramanujam's interest in the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Ramanujam had made out a prima facie case to show that he had an interest in the subject matter of the suit and that his presence was necessary to effectively decide the controversy. The court noted that Ramanujam had produced bank deposit slips showing deposits in the account of the owner of the premises, receipts for property tax payments, and affidavits from other tenants supporting his claim. The court also found that the plaintiff's allegations regarding Srinivasan's possession were vague and that the report of the Local Commissioner was not helpful due to the inability to enter the premises.
Issues: 1. Whether Ramanujam had a direct legal interest in the property to be impleaded as a defendant under O. 1, R. 10 of the Civil P. C.? 2. Whether Ramanujam's presence was necessary to effectively adjudicate upon the issue of possession?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that Ramanujam had made out a prima facie case to show that he had an interest in the subject matter of the suit. The court noted that Ramanujam had produced bank deposit slips showing deposits in the account of the owner of the premises, receipts for property tax payments, and affidavits from other tenants supporting his claim. The court also found that the plaintiff's allegations regarding Srinivasan's possession were vague and that the report of the Local Commissioner was not helpful due to the inability to enter the premises. 2. The court held that Ramanujam's presence was necessary to effectively adjudicate upon the issue of possession. The court noted that the plaintiff's allegations regarding Srinivasan's possession were vague and that the report of the Local Commissioner was not helpful due to the inability to enter the premises. The court also noted that Ramanujam had claimed to be in possession of the property and that he had produced evidence to support his claim.
Final Decision: The court allowed Ramanujam's application to be impleaded as a defendant in the suit, holding that his presence was necessary to effectively adjudicate upon the issue of possession.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition for revising under S. 115 of the Civil P. C. an order of the Sub-Judge 1st Class Delhi allowing an application made under O. 1 R. 10 of the Civil P. C. and directing that the applicant be impleaded as a defendant in Suit No. 836 of 1973. The plaintiffs are the petitioners.
( 2 ) SARDAR Sohan Singh was admittedly the owner of premises bearing No. 4/65 W. E. A. Karol Bagh, New Delhi. He died on 12-5-1965 leaving behind four sons and 3 daughters who are the plaintiffs in the above suit, Sohan Singh as well as all his children have all along been residents of Bangkok Thailand and the suit has been filed through their "mukhtar Am" Sardar Amar Singh who resides in the above premises in Karol Bagh,
( 3 ) THIS suit was instituted by the plaintiffs against one Srinivasan (the first respondent herein) for the recovery of possession of a portion of the ground floor of the above premises (namely two rooms, kitchen, bath and W. C. ). The plaint in the suit dated 1-8-1973 was a very short one. It alleged that the defendant was in unauthorised possession of the portion in dispute and had refused to surrender possession to the plaintiffs or to Amar Singh, though called upon by them to do so, the final refusal having been made "since a week back". It was therefore prayed that a decree for possession of the premises (marked red in the annexed plan) and for costs be passed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant. Summons to the defendant by registered post was directed to be issued on three occasions but were returned on the ground that the premises were locked. Thereupon the plaintiff filed an application under O. 5, R. 20 stating that the defendant "was avoiding service intentionally. " On 1-11-1973 the Court directed that he may be served by publication in a newspaper and the suit was posted to the 4th Dec. 1973.
( 4 ) AT this stage on 3-12-1973 one Ramanujam (second respondent herein) came forward with an application under O. 1 R. 10 Civil P. C. and sought to get impleaded as defendant in the suit. His case was that he had been the tenant of Sohan Singh in respect of the suit property and the courtyard "for the last about 15 years on monthly rent of Rs. 90. 00"; that the owners being away in Bangkok collected the rents when they or their cousin Ajit Singh visited India; that the last visit was in Sept. 1970 when Ajit Singh received from the applicant the rents upto 30th Sept, 1970; that the applicant had sublet a part of the premises (namely one room and the kitchen) with the consent and permission of Sohan Singh to Srinivasan; that Srinivasan had surrendered the portion to the applicant in Sept. , 1972 when he left for Canada; and that thereafter the applicant continued to be in occupation of the entire suit premises. It was therefore stated that only he and not the first respondent had an interest and title in the suit premises and that he was therefore a necessary and proper party to tha suit. It was alleged that Amar Singh "posing himself" as general attorney of the present owners had filed the suit without their knowledge or instructions. It was alleged that the suit had been filed against Srinivasan knowing full well that he was not in possession and taking advantage of the absence of the applicant and his son from the premises with a view to obtain an ex parte decree for possession and having it executed during their absence from the premises.
( 5 ) THE application was naturally contested on behalf of the plaintiffs. It was affirmed that the suit had been properly filed. It was denied that the applicant had anything to do with the suit premises. It was reiterated that the first respondent was in occupation and in support of this allegation a photograph said to have been taken on 24-8-1973 and showing the name plate of the first respondent affixed in front of the premises was filed. It was stated that the second respondent was a tenant of Amar Singh in respect of another premises bearing
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
