Back
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
V.P.GUPTA
BELI RAM - Appellant
Versus
SUNEHRU - Respondent
F. A. O. No. 27 of 1979
Decided On : 03/19/1980
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER 1, RULE 3 AND ORDER 1, RULE 10 - NECESSARY PARTY - SUIT FOR POSSESSION - CO-OWNER - TITLE DISPUTE - IMPLEADING AS PARTY.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for possession of 4 biswas of land, alleging that the defendants had illegally taken possession of it. The defendants claimed that they had purchased 2 bighas of land from Smt. Ghogan, who was a co-owner of the land along with the plaintiff, and that Smt. Ghogan was in possession of the disputed land.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Smt. Ghogan was a necessary party to the suit because her title to the land was directly in dispute and her status as a widow of Sukh Ram was also in dispute. The court further held that no effective decree could be passed without impleading her as a party.
Issues: Whether Smt. Ghogan was a necessary party to the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: A person is a necessary party if in his or her absence an effective decree cannot be passed at all. In this case, the plaintiff denied the title of Smt. Ghogan in the land and her status as a widow of Sukh Ram. Therefore, the matter of deciding the title of Smt. Ghogan in the property in dispute was directly involved and if it was finally held that Smt. Ghogan had any title to this property then in that case it is just possible that the suit may not be maintainable. In any event no final adjudication can be given regarding the title of Smt. Ghogan to the suit property or her status as a widow of Sukh Ram in the absence of Smt. Ghogan.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed and the order of remand passed by the District Judge was upheld.
V. P. Gupta, J.—This appeal has been filed against the order, dated 22nd May 1979 passed by the District Judge, Simla Division, Gamp at Bilaspur, by which he has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Sub-Judge, Ghumarwin, on 5th August, 1976, and has remanded the case to the court of Sub-Judge Ghumarwin, with the direction that Smt. Ghogan be impleaded as a party in the case, a9 she was a necessary party for the adjudication of the controversy between the parties to the suit.
2. The brief facts are that Beli Ram (Plaintiff) appellant filed a suit for possession with respect to 4 biswas of land which is shown as khasra number 898/i in the Tatima attached with the plaint and which is a part of khasra number 8^8 measuring 15 bighas 6 biswas of Amerpur, Pargna Teoni, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. The possession was claimed by demolition of the house illegally built by the (defendants) respondents.
3. The allegations in the plaint are that khasra number 898, measuring 15 bighas 6 biswas is the sole ownership of the plaintiff and that during the absence of the plaintiff the defendants took illegal possession of a portion of the above said khasra number in the year 1974 and thereafter the defendants started construction of a house in this land. On this illegal act of the defendants the plaintiff applied for demarcation of khasra number 898 along with other khasra numbers and during the demarcation it was found that the defendants have taken illegal possession of 4 biswas of land which is the land in dispute and is shown as khasra number 898/1 in the Tatima attached with the plaint. 4 The defendants contested the suit of the plaintiff and pleaded that they are not in illegal possession of any portion of the plaintiffs land. According to them, the plaintiff along with Smt- Ghogan widow of Sukh Ram was the owner of the whole of khasra number 8J8 measuring 15 bighas 6 biswas and that they were owners in equal shares. Smt. Ghogan transferred her ownership to the extent of 2 bighas in favour of the defendants out of khasra number 898 for construction of a house to be built by the defendants, and that Smt. Ghogan was in possession of the disputed land and the hisselari kasht of which was handed over to the defendants. It was further asserted that the defendants have constructed a house on the land. All other allegations of the plaintiff were denied and it was pleaded that Smt. Ghogin is a necessary party to the suit.
5. The plaintiff filed a replication to the written statement and while reiterating the averments of the plaint he pleaded that Smt. Ghogan was not an owner in khasra number 8^8 or ia short the plaintiff denied the title/ownership/ possession of Smt. Ghogan.
6. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed: "1. Whether Smt. Ghogan is a necessary party to the suit ? (X P. D.
2. Whether the land situated in khasra No 898 measuring 15 bighas 6 biswas is in the ownership and p33se3sion of the plaintiff , as alleged ? O. P. P.
3. Whether the defendants forcibly constructed a house in the portion of khasra number shown as khasra No. 898/1 belonging to the plaintiff, if so, to what effect ? O. P. P.
4. Whether the suit is properly valued for court-fee ? O. P. D.
5. Relief
7. The Sub-Judge, Ghumarwin, vide his judgment and decree, dated 5th August, 1976, held that Smt. Ghogan is not a necessary party to the suit, she was not the owner of khasra number 898 and was not in possession of the same and that the plaintiff is the sole owner of khasra number 898, and further that the defendants have illegally taken possession of the suit land which is a part of the plaintiffs ownership and on these findings the suit of the plaintiff was decreed.
8. Feeling aggrieved from this judgment and decree the defendants filed on appeal in the court of District Judge, Simla Sessions Division, who vide his judgment, dated 22nd May, 1979 held that Smt. Ghogan was a necessary party to the litigation because her title was in
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
