The significance of a registered document and possession in establishing prima facie right to be impleaded as a party in a civil suit.

S.D.Anand, J.

1. These petitions are directed against the impugned order dated 3.2.2009 vide which a plea filed by the petitioner-trust under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., for its impleadment as a party to the civil suit, was negatived by the learned Trial Court. The facts in the first instance: -

"Parshotam Das and Har Gopal were real brothers and were owners of M/s Ravi Dyeing and Printing Finishing Works. The property aforementioned was partitioned and each one of them got an equal share in it. The partition deed was dated 18.5.1968. A mutation, on the basis of partition deed, was also sanctioned. In terms of that arrangement, Har Gopal son of Bal Krishan became the owner of 18 Kanals 1 marla area comprised in 1034/2 (15-13) and 1444 (2- 8); whereas Parshotam Dass became the owner of 18 kanals 1 marlas of land comprised in 1034/2/1 (18-1). Parshotam Dass thereby became proprietor of /s M/s Ravi Dyeing and Printing Finishing Works. Har Gopal sold his share to Anu Khanna wife of Sunil Khanna, Lata Rani and Madhu Khanna to the extent of 57/361 share each. Madhu Khanna, in turn, sold off her share to Madan Mohan, Rajan Khanna, Rajan Mehra and Radhey Mohan. The property, which fell to the share of Parshotam Dass, was inherited by his daughter Usha, from whom that property was purcahsed by the plaintiffs-respondents who (plaintiffs - respondents) filed a suit for a declaration that they are owners of the property in suit. They also sought a permanent injunction restraining Avinash Mohindru (through whom the petitioner - trust had filed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C.) " in his individual or in any other capacity from interfering in the property described above and from entering forcibly and illegally in the suit property". Also applied for was the restraint of respondents No. 2 to 4 herein " from raising any construction in the property as described above and not to make any alteration, addition in the building except with the permission in writing of the plaintiffs".

2. The petitioner - trust filed the plea under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., read with Section 151 C.P.C., on an averment that Parshotam Das aforementioned had gifted the property in suit to it vide registered gift deed dated 5.11.1969 (registered on 27.11.1969).

3. The plea was resisted by the plaintiffs-respondents by averring that no gift deed in respect of the property in suit could have been executed by Parshotam Das as he had ceased to have alienable title on 5.11.1969. The further averment was that the premises in dispute are under the possession of M/s Shri Vishnu Processor (respondent no.7 herein) and the petitioner had never been in possession thereof. The gift deed was averred to be a forged document and a manipulated affair.

4. The learned Trial Court declined the plea under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. by observing that the property indicated in the gift deed is different from the property in suit and that the gift deed was in respect of Khasra nos. which had fallen to the share of Har Gopal, brother of Parshotam Das aforementioned. In drawing that inference, the learned Trial Court was also influenced by the fact that the gift deed had not been reflected in the revenue record and the petitioner had raised the claim for the first time on the basis of a gift deed " which had not seen the light of the day in the revenue record even." The learned Trial Court held that the plaintiffs- respondents could not be compelled to fight against a party which had not been impleaded by the former in the cause before the Trial Court.

5. Shri Ashok Aggarwal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argued that the impugned gift deed being a registered document, the existence thereof could not be wished away by the plaintiffs-respondents, particularly when the petitioner herein had filed a suit for ejectment against the respondents no.7 and 8 herein and the latter (respondents no.7 and 8) had tendered rent in respect of the premises under issue an