The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of impleading necessary parties in a Civil Suit and the distinction between Hiba and Hiba-bil-Iwaz in determining ownership rights over the suit property.

Sanjay Yadav, J.

Order-dated 5.3.2013 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. A/625/2011, whereby an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the petitioners, has been dismissed, is being assailed vide this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The Civil Suit in which petitioners sought impleadment is at the instance of respondent No.1 for declaration, permanent injunction and declaration that Will dated 12.1.1991 and Letter dated 3.1.1955 is forged and non est in the eyes of law and for recovery of possession against respondents No.2 to 9 in respect of Cottage No.9 bearing Khasra No.65 (though petitioner alleges that the suit property is situated over Khasra No.56, 64 and 65) situated at Sultania Road, Koh-e-Fiza, Bhopal admeasuring 1.46 acres, on the plea that respondents No.2 to 9 have manufactured a forged and fabricated Will stating that their father Captain Asadullah Khan had given the suit property; whereas, his father was not the owner of suit property but was given for residence by Late Nawab Hamidullah Khan being an A.D.C. The title over the suit property is being set up by the plaintiff on the contentions that Begum Saleha Sultan, daughter of Begum Mehartaj Nawab Sajida Sultan had gifted the suit property vide Memorandum of Oral Hiba dated 29.8.2000 to him, as such he became the owner of the suit property. And, three of the respondents were in permissive possession over parts of suit property who started claiming ownership over it on the basis of forged Will.

3. Petitioners on the plea that mother-in-law of petitioner No.1 and grandmother of petitioners No.2 to 4, Begum Mehartaj Nawab Sajida Sultan, daughter of Nawab Hamidullah Khan, was the Ruler of Bhopal, declared as such under Article 366(22) of the Constitution of India. That, after the death of Nawab Hamidullah Khan, she (Begum Mehartaj Nawab Sajida Sultan) was recognised as his heir and successor to his entire properties and assets. It is contended that the petitioners being the joint owner of the suit property having 50% share in the same, Begum Saleha Sultan had no right to give away the property in gift to respondent No.1. It is further contended that Begun Saleha Sultan had earlier filed a Civil Suit No.36-A/99 in respect of Khasra No.56, 64 and 65 and other properties of Nawab of Bhopal; wherein she admitted of having small share in the properties and rest of the properties belong to Nawab Mansur Ali Khan Patoudi and her sister Begun Sahiba Sultan. It appears from the pleadings that said suit has been dismissed and First Appeal No.258/2002 is pending in our High Court. Apparently, the petitioner does not gain any ground on the basis of same pleadings in said suit.

4. It was further contended that the suit property as well other properties of Begum Mehartaj Nawab Sajida Sultan was also subject matter of the Civil Suit filed by younger sister of Begum Rabia Sultan, which was decided in favour of Begum Mehartaj Nawab Sajida Sultan; where against, First Appeal No. 296/2000 is pending before our High Court.

5. It was also the contention of petitioners in an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC that one more civil suit was filed by one Begum Suraiya Rashid and others, which was dismissed in favour of Begum Mehartaj Nawab Sajida Sultan; where against, First Appeal being F.A. No. 437/2000 in pending.

6. It was contended that Begum Saleha Sultan had also filed a Civil Suit : RCS No.12-A/2002 for rendition of accounts in respective of entire properties of Nawab of Bhopal claiming 25% share therein. The trial Court as evident from the pleadings has declined to decree the suit for partition.

7. On the basis of these facts, it was contended that since no partition of the suit property has taken place between the legal heirs of Begum Nawab Sajida Sultan, no legal heirs of Nawab of Bhopal could alienate, sell or gift the properties of Nawab and as per the judgment in two civil suits which are subject matter