Point of Law: While considering a petition under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC for addition of party, court is to satisfy itself that person who is sought to be added as party ought to have been joined as a party.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.

1. Heard Mr. A Sattar, learned for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S Ali, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Ms. K Phukan, learned Government Advocate.

2. The present petition has been fled assailing an order dated 11.11.2022, whereby an application filed by the present petitioners under Order I Rule 10 (2) read with section 151 of the Code Civil Procedure seeking to be impleaded as party defendant in Title Suit No. 65/2021 was rejected.

3. The background facts leading to the present petition can be summarized as follows:

(I) The respondent No. 1 as plaintiff instituted one Title Suit being Title Suit No. 65/2021 seeking declaration of right title and interest over the schedule suit land with a further declaration that the defendants have no legal right or authority to get the mutation and partition granted in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land cancelled. A further prayer of permanent injunction was also sought against the defendant No. 1.

(II) The case of the plaintiff is that the father of the plaintiff by a registered sale deed No. 359 dated 23.03.1999 purchased a plot of land measuring 2 bighas out of 2 bigha, 1 katha 16 lecha covered by Dag No. 514/620 of Periodic Patta No. 212 from the defendant No. 1.

(III) According to the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 (the vendor) acquired title over the land by inheritance from his father, one Padma Kanta Konwar who died on 30.01.1996. It is also pleaded that the other brothers of the defendant have been possessing their respective shares of land separately after partition granted on the same day i.e., on 30.01.1996. Thus it is the case of the plaintiff that on 30.01.1996 the land purchased by the father of the plaintiff was partitioned among the sons of Padma Kanta Konwar and the vendor of the plaintiff who is one of the son of said Padma Kanta Konwar executed the registered sale deed on 30.01.1996.

(IV) It is the case of the plaintiff that after the purchase, he possessed the land and got the land mutated in his name after creation of separate dags and patta. Now the plaintiff alleges that defendant No. 1 has been trying to get the partition and mutation granted in favour of the plaintiff cancelled and has threatened that he will forcefully evict and dispose the plaintiff from the suit land. It is also case of the plaintiff that the defendant No. 2 who is the Circle Officer of the Revenue Circle where the land is situated declared that the earlier Circle Officer once cancelled the mutation granted in favour of the plaintiff’s father. Accordingly, the title of the plaintiff was clouded and having threatened the suit was filed for declaration of the right title and interest on the basis of the sale deed in question and for permanent injunction.

4. In the meantime, the defendant No. 1 expired and he was also duly substituted before the Trial Court and in the present proceeding also. Though notices were duly served upon the legal heirs of defendant No. 1, who is respondent No. 1 herein, however, none appears for them.

5. The petitioners herein are daughters in law and grand-daughters of Padma Kanta Konwar and accordingly, they claims to be inherited some land from said Padma Kanta Konwar through his son namely Devananda Konwar, who is the brother of the deceased defendant No. 1.

6. The petitioners have filed the application in question i.e., under Order I Rule 10 (2) with a prayer to implead them as defendant in the suit filed by the plaintiff against deceased defendant No. 1. The basic ground for seeking such impleadment is discernible from the application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) which was registered as Miss (J) Case No. 67/2022 are as follows:

(I) The plaintiff suppressed certain material facts that a portion of the disputed land, after purchase by the deceased father of the plaintiff from the defendant No. 1, the predecessor in interest namely Devananda Konwar lodged a complaint in the office of the Circle Office Demow seeking