S.N. Hussain, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners who are plaintiffs and defendants (appellants and respondents) are jointly aggrieved by order 28.5.2004 passed in Title Appeal No. 102/1998 by which the learned Second Additional District Judge, Siwan, had allowed the petition of the intervenors-opposite parties under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and impleaded them as respondents in the appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners challenges the impugned order on the ground that the learned Court below has committed a clear error of record by assuming that the geneological table given by the intervenors was correct. He pointed out to the geneology given by the plaintiffs and the intervenors respectively in which none of the ancestors appears to be common.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that third party, who are not concerned with the families of either of the parties to the suit, should not be impleaded starting a de novo trial of the matter specially when the trial Court has already decided the suit and at the appellate stage the intervention petition has been filed. In this connection, he relies upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anokhe Lal v. Radhamohan Bansal and Ors., reported in, AIR 1997 SC 257. He also submits that even if a proper party intervenes they should not be impleaded by the learned Court below merely on surmises and, conjectures.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties vehemently opposes the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that it was an admitted fact that there were four sets of landlords having equal shares whereafter there was a Collectorate Partition Suit No. 8 of 1929- 30 whereafter separate Barwardas were prepared in the names of different landlords. He further submits that in the aforesaid circumstances, the share allotted to the predecessor of the intervenors were included in the suit and was sought to be partitioned by metes and bounds by way of a compromise petition filed jointly by the plaintiffs and the defendants in the lower Appellate Court. Hence, he submits that it became necessary for the intervenors-opposite parties to intervene and impleaded as respondents. He further avers that the learned Court below has passed the impugned order after considering all the materials on record and there is no illegality in it.
6. Having considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the Geneological table given by both the parties upto seven generations does show that none of their ancestors were common. The intervenors have not even given any Geneological table above their seven generations in support of their submissions. Furthermore, the jointness under all the Touzis, the Collectorate partition and Barwardas can not legally be the only criterions to decide the matter of jointness, as in the meantime, the Zamindari had been abolished under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the new considerations have to be looked into for proper adjudication of the lands. However, there is nothing to show any jointness between the two families nor the intervenors have raised any objection during the pendency of the Title Suit whereafter a Preliminary decree has already been prepared and hence in the aforesaid circumstances, the intervenors can not be allowed at the appellate stage to interfere in the matter and disturb the entire process of adjudication. This aspect of the matter was not at all considered by the learned Court below while passing the impugned order, although, it was essential for deciding the issue involved.
7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order of the learned Court below is set aside and this civil revision is allowed. However, it goes without saying that since the intervenors-opposite parties were neither party to the suit nor party to the Title Appeal, any judgment and decree passed therein will not be binding upon them and in any view of the matter they can not be stopped from filing a separate suit for redressal of their grievances in accordance with law.