Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHIVDAYAL, J.
Fundilal - Applicant
Vs.
Baldeo Prasad and another - Respondents
C. Revn. No. 28 of 1974 (G)
Decided On : 08-08-1977
(2) Trespasser-may be ejected by one co-owner alone.
(3) Civil P. C., 1908-O. 1, R. 10-necessary party-one of the--co-owners filing a suit for possession against a trespasser-remaining co-owners neither a necessary nor a proper parties.
1. Baldeo Prasad, who was admittedly a co-owner, brought a suit against Manikchand alleging that the latter was occupying the suit premises as licensee under a written agreement w. e. f. May 31, 1970 for four months. He had agreed to vacate the shop on September 30, 1970 but he did not do so, Baldeo Prasad, therefore, brought the suit for possession against Manikchand. He claimed to be the sole licensor and Manikchand as the sole licensee. The suit was resisted by Manikchand. During the pendency of the suit Fundilal, brother of Baldeo Prasad made an application for being joined as co-plaintiff. His contention was that since he and Baldeo Prasad together purchased the suit property, he was a necessary party. Trial Court rejected Fundilal's application.
2. Held : It is settled law that one of the co-owners can alone bring a suit for possession against another who is in wrongful possession. The present suit must be regarded as one on behalf of both the co-owners, i. e. including Fundilal, it cannot be said that Fundilal is a necessary or a proper party. Shivangoude Lingangouda v. Gangawwa Bassappa, AIR 1967 Maysore 143, Pilonani v. Anand Singh, 1960 JLJ 910, Govind Jageshwar v. Kashirao and others, AIR 1927 Nag. 390, Hatunbi v. Bunnabi, 1972 JLJ SN 18, Ishaque Ahmed v. Ram Singh, 1976 MPLJ SN 48, Amrik Rai v. State of M.P. 1977 MPLJ SN 16, distinguished. Revision dismissed.
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
