The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, prohibits Benami transactions and bars the right to recover property held Benami on the strength of a document in the joint name of four individuals and not in the name of a coparcener in a Hindu Undivided Family.

P.K. LOHRA, J.

1. Petitioners, by the instant writ petition, under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, have challenged order dated 08.07.2016 (Annex. 5), passed by Additional District Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (for short, ‘learned Court below’). By the order impugned, the learned Court below has dismissed the application of petitioner-applicants under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for their impleadment as party defendants in a suit for partition filed by respondent-plaintiffs.

2. The fact, apposite for the purpose of this petition, are that respondent-plantiffs filed a civil suit for partition arraying respondent Nos. 3 & 4 as defendants, inter-alia, on the ground that a property, situated in Ward No. 2 (now Ward No. 4) at Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, was jointly purchased by all of them through a registered sale-deed dated 15.03.1991. The particulars of property and its neighborhood are also mentioned in the plaint. As per version of the respondent-plaintiffs, they are owner of half of the property and the another half is owned by respondent Nos. 3 & 4. The constructed part of the property is also mentioned in the plaint. For seeking partition of the property, it is pleaded in the plaint that the property, which was jointly owned by all the four, is presently in dilapidated condition and requires thorough repairing and new construction. With these averments, the respondent-plaintiffs craved for grant of a partition decree in respect of entire property by metes and bounds. In order to show cause of action, it is averred in the plaint by the respondent-plaintiffs that at their behest a request was made to respondent Nos. 3 & 4 for partition but their request was declined, which compelled them to file the suit for partition.

3. When the suit was in progress, at the behest of petitioner-applicants, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was laid for being impleaded as party defendant. In the application, it is interalia averred by the petitioner-applicants that the disputed property is not jointly owned by respondent-plaintiffs and respondent Nos. 3 & 4. As per version of the petitioner-applicants, the property in question was purchased out of income of the joint family by father-in-law of first respondent and third respondent Shri Champalal and his other sons, Chhaganlal, Heer Singh, Kamal Singh, Chattar Singh, Ummaid Singh, Amar Singh and Lalit Kumar. It is also pleaded in the application that since purchase of the property, one of the petitioner-applicants, Lalit Kumar, is in occupation of shop and godown constructed on the land in question carrying on his business of grocery. It is also averred in the application that the property in question is purchased from the usufruct of joint family income, and therefore, being legal heirs of Late Champalal all the applicants are also entitled for their share and if they are not impleaded as party then they would suffer loss. Petitioner-applicants, in substance, pleaded in the application that they are necessary party to the litigation.

4. The application submitted by petitioner-applicants is contested by respondent-plaintiffs by submitting their reply. In the reply, while reiterating the averments made in the plaint, it is pleaded by the respondent-plaintiffs that none of the applicants are proper party to the litigation much less necessary parties, and therefore, being alien having no right, title or interest in the suit property, are not entitled for impleadment as party defendants. Respondent/plaintiffs in their reply also raised an issue that impleadment of petitioners as party defendants would alter the nature of the suit which is for partition of immovable property jointly owned by the existing parties to the litigation. With these objections, respondent/plaintiffs craved for rejection of the application.

5. Learned Court below heard arguments and during the course of arguments, on behalf of petitioner-applicants, an issue was raised that the property in quest