In a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, issues of ownership and title are not considered; only possession and wrongful dispossession are determinative.

ORDER :

Subhash Chand, J.

Heard learned Counsel for both the parties.

2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide order dated 19^th April, 2024, I.A. No. 9633 of 2023 was allowed whereby on account of the death of opposite party no. 2, namely, Raju Kumar, his legal heirs were directed to be substituted and, thereafter, notice were also served to all the legal heirs of deceased Raju Kumar but in compliance of the order dated 19th April, 2024, he could not make the necessary amendment in the array of parties in this CMP, impleading the legal heirs of Raju Kumar.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to incorporate the amendment in this C.M.P. during the course of day.

4. This C.M.P. has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 18.11.2022, whereby the application moved by the petitioner for impleadment of party to the Original Suit No. 14 of 2021, pending before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Khunti has been rejected.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Original Suit No. 14 of 2021 Budhdeo Kumar Kashyap and Ors. vs Samarendra Kumar is pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) I Khunti and the same is at the stage of argument. It has been further submitted that the petitioner is not party to that suit. He had moved the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading him as defendant in the very suit on this ground that the petitioner is the co-sharer of the very suit property in regard to which possession is sought to be restored under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act by the plaintiff against the defendant that very property is the property of joint ownership and joint possession and the petitioner being one of the co-sharer of that very property has valuable right in the same and the learned Trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioner by passing the impugned order which is based on perverse finding.

5.1 It has also been further submitted that the plaintiff is alleged to have obtained the possession of the property in question under an agreement, for the same, the property in suit which was of joint ownership and joint possession was never partitioned, as such the very agreement to sell if any executed in favor of the plaintiff, same is also nullity as without any partition, no specific portion of the property of joint ownership and joint possession could have been agreed to be transferred by way of their agreement to sell. 5.2 In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the case law, Gajara Vishnu Gosavi vs. Prakash Nanasaheb Kamble & Ors, (2009) 10 SCC 654 and Hardeo Rai vs Shakuntala Devi & Ors, (2008) 7 SCC 46 .

6. Per contra on behalf of the opposite party, learned counsel has vehemently opposed the contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the suit which was filed by the plaintiff/opposite party herein was for restoration of the possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act from which the petitioner was forcibly dispossessed by the defendants Surendra Kumar. It has also been further submitted that the very property in suit was in possession of the plaintiff/opposite party under an agreement to sell which had been executed by Bhagirathi Gaunjhu who was also the co-sharer in the property in question and it has also been alleged that Bhagirath Gaunjhu had delivered the possession of the property in question to the plaintiff under the agreement having still alleged that the very property in question had been received by him under the oral partition. As such, the suit which is at the stage of argument and the presence of the petitioner