1996 Supreme(P&H) 575

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.L.Anand, J.
Ajit Singh
Versus
Ramail Singh And Ors.
Regular Second Appeal No. 75 of 1992,
Decided On : APRIL 11, 1996

The next friend of a minor should not have an adverse interest to that of the minor and should not be a defendant in the case. A bona fide purchaser for consideration is one who purchases property in good faith, without notice of any defects in the title, and for valuable consideration. The succession of a deceased person is determined according to the Hindu Succession Act. A sale deed can only convey title to the extent of the ownership of the seller. Collusion requires active connivance between the parties to achieve a common objective. A suit is not bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties if the defendants fail to lead evidence to prove who the necessary parties are and that they are claiming an interest in the estate.

Headnote:

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER 32 RULE 4(1) - NEXT FRIEND - LOCUS STANDI - ADVERSE INTEREST - SALE DEED - BONA FIDE PURCHASER - MUTATION ENTRIES - SUCCESSION - COLLUSION - MIS-JOINDER OF NECESSARY PARTIES - DAUGHTERS OF DECEASED NOT CLAIMING INTEREST - EVIDENCE.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs, minor sons of Bachint Singh, through their guardian Kewal Singh, filed a suit for declaration and injunction against Smt. Bhago (mother of plaintiffs and widow of Bachint Singh), Ajit Singh (defendant No. 2), and Kuldip Singh (defendant No. 3) to establish their ownership in joint possession to the extent of 2/3rd share in the property measuring 68 Kanals 7 Marlas. The plaintiffs alleged that the sale deed executed by Smt. Bhago in favor of Ajit Singh was illegal, void, and liable to be set aside. The defendants contested the suit, raising various objections, including the locus standi of Kewal Singh as the next friend of the plaintiffs, mis-joinder of necessary parties, and the validity of the sale deed.

Finding of the Court:

1. Kewal Singh had locus standi to file the suit as the next friend of the plaintiffs since his interest was not adverse to that of the minors, and he was not working against their interests. 2. Ajit Singh, the purchaser under the sale deed, was not a bona fide purchaser for consideration and could not rely on any wrong mutations in the revenue record to establish his title. 3. The succession of Bachint Singh was determined, with his two sons inheriting one-third share each and the remaining one-third share devolving upon his two widows, Smt. Bhago and Smt. Bant Kaur. Upon the death of Smt. Bant Kaur, her share devolved upon Smt. Bhago, making her the owner of one-third share in the suit land. 4. Smt. Bhago could only convey title with respect to the land measuring 13 Kanals 13-2/3 Marlas (say 14 Marlas) under the sale deed in favor of Ajit Singh, and not 19 Kanals and 19 Marlas as claimed by Ajit Singh. 5. There was no collusion between the plaintiffs, Smt. Bhago, and Kewal Singh in filing the suit. 6. The suit was not bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties as the defendants failed to lead evidence to prove who were the daughters of Bachint Singh, and there was no evidence that they were claiming any interest in the estate.

Issues: 1. Whether Kewal Singh had locus standi to file the suit as the next friend of the plaintiffs? 2. Whether Ajit Singh was a bona fide purchaser for consideration? 3. How was the succession of Bachint Singh determined? 4. What was the extent of Smt. Bhago's ownership in the suit land? 5. Was there collusion between the plaintiffs, Smt. Bhago, and Kewal Singh in filing the suit? 6. Was the suit bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Order 32 Rule 4(1) of the Civil Procedure Code provides that the next friend of a minor should not have an adverse interest to that of the minor and should not be a defendant in the case. In this case, Kewal Singh's interest was not adverse to the plaintiffs, and he was not working against their interests. Therefore, he had locus standi to file the suit as the next friend of the plaintiffs. 2. A bona fide purchaser for consideration is one who purchases property in good faith, without notice of any defects in the title, and for valuable consideration. In this case, Ajit Singh was not a bona fide purchaser because he was aware of the limited extent of Smt. Bhago's ownership in the suit land and could not rely on any wrong mutations in the revenue record to establish his title. 3. The succession of Bachint Singh was determined according to the Hindu Succession Act, with his two sons inheriting one-third share each and the remaining one-third share devolving upon his two widows, Smt. Bhago and Smt. Bant Kaur. Upon the death of Smt. Bant Kaur, her share devolved upon Smt. Bhago, making her the owner of one-third share in the suit land. 4. Smt. Bhago could only convey title with respect to the land measuring 13 Kanals 13-2/3 Marlas (say 14 Marlas) under the sale deed in favor of Ajit Singh, and not 19 Kanals and 19 Marlas as claimed by Ajit Singh. This is because she did not have ownership over the excess land. 5. There was no collusion between the plaintiffs, Smt. Bhago, and Kewal Singh in filing the suit. Collusion requires active connivance between the parties to achieve a common objective. In this case, there was no evidence to suggest that Smt. Bhago was instrumental in putting up the plaintiffs through Kewal Singh for the institution of the suit. 6. The suit was not bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties because the defendants failed to lead evidence to prove who were the daughters of Bachint Singh, and there was no evidence that they were claiming any interest in the estate.

Final Decision: The appeal filed by Ajit Singh was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court were upheld. The plaintiffs were declared the owners in joint possession to the extent of 2/3rd share in the property measuring 68 Kanals 7 Marlas, and Ajit Singh was restrained from alienating the property which he purchased from Smt. Bhago more than her share.