BHARGAVA, J.—These three revision petitions are being dealt with together as the petitioner is common to them and they also raise common questions of law and fact.

2. In the court of the Munsif, Alwar, the plaintiffs-non-petitioners filed separate suits for ejectment against the defendants-non-petitioners who were described as tenants of one Shivlal deceased from whom they claimed to have purchased the suit property. The defendants in their written statements denied that they held the property as tenants of Shivlal. They stated that they were in possession of the suit property since the time of their ancestors and were permanent tenants of the land and had constructed houses on it at their own costs. They further pleaded that Shivlal had no right to transfer the suit property to the plaintiffs in each case as he was the muafidar or jagirdar whose jagir had been resumed by the State of Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act of 1952 (hereinafter called the Act of 1952) and thus the ownership of the suit property vested in the State. They also stated that the alleged sale in favour of the plaintiffs was fictitious.

3. The trial court did not frame any issue on the plea taken by the defendants viz., that the ownership of the suit property had become vested in the State of Rajasthan because of its resumption under the Act of 1952. The trial proceeded when in the suit out of which civil Revision No. 458 of 1967 has arisen, defendants made an application for framing an additional issue. The court acceded to their request and framed additional issue No. 9 on the point whether the ownership of the suit property, due to its resumption, vested in the State and the alleged sale in favour of the plaintiffs was unauthorised. On this issue too, the defendants closed their evidence and the plaintiffs are now required to lead evidence in rebuttal. The other two cases were also ripe for arguments. It was at this stage of the cases that the petitioner-Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar made an application under Order 1 rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as a party. The learned Munsiff rejected the application in each case holding that the simple suit for ejectment cannot be allowed to be converted into a suit for title and if the petitioner wanted an adjudication of its title to the suit property it could file a separate suit. It is against these orders that the present revision applications have been filed.

4. Under Order 1 rule 10(2) of the Code a person may be added to a suit:

(i) when he ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, that is when he is a necessary party.

(ii) when without his presence the question in the suit cannot be completely decided, that is when he is a proper party.

5. The question of addition of parties under the said rule is generally one of judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case subject to provisions of or. 1 rule 1 and or. 2 rule 3. The rule has been enacted to prevent multiplicity of suits and conflict of decisions though it is not the only consideration in impleading parties.

6. In these cases learned counsel has urged that Shivlal was a jagirdar and his jagir including the suit property was resumed under the Act of 1952 and thereafter, it vested in the State. Thereafter under the provisions of sec. 43 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act of 1959 (hereinafter called the Act of 1959), a notification was issued by the State whereby these properties along with other properties were placed at the disposal of the petitioner. After the vesting of the property in the State, Shivlal had no right left to transfer it to the plaintiffs. It is pointed out that the presence of the petitioner before the court is necessary to enable it effectually and completely to adjudicate upon the question whether the petitioner or the plaintiffs is the owner of the land. It is urged that the power of add

Click Here to Read the rest of this document