Paramjit Singh Vs. Karambir Singh and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1057788
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnNov-14-2012
AppellantParamjit Singh
RespondentKarambir Singh and Others
Excerpt:
c.r.no.2029 o”1. in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh civil revision no.2029 of 2010 date of decision:14. 11.2011 paramjit singh ...petitioner versus karambir singh and others ... respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice ajay kumar mittal present: mr. vineet sharma, advocate for the petitioner. ms. gaganpreet kaur, advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3. mr. v.k.sandhir, advocate for respondent no.4. ajay kumar mittal,j.1. the plaintiff-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 9.11.2009 passed by the trial court whereby an application under order 1 rule 10 read with section 151 of the code of civil procedure (in short, “the code”.) was allowed which was filed on behalf of the applicants - karambir singh, suraj balram singh and kanwaljit kaur, sons and daughter of umrao singh through their general power of attorney swinder singh chhina. a prayer was made for impleading the said applicants as defendants in a suit for possession filed by the plaintiff-petitioner with the averments that the applicants were owners to the extent of 2/3rd share in the suit property and also other property and possession thereof. it was further asserted that there was earlier litigation between the present applicants and the plaintiff-petitioner paramjit singh with respect to c.r.no.2029 o”2. the suit property out of which rsa no.3552 of 2001 was finally adjudicated by this court on 24.1.2006 in which it was said that the entitlement and share of each of the co-sharer was left to be determined in appropriate proceedings. it was, thus, claimed that the order was perfectly justified in impleading the applicants as defendants in the suit.2. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the applicants were neither necessary not proper parties and the trial court erred in impleading them as defendant-respondents. it was claimed that the application was filed just to delay the decision of the suit whereby possession had been claimed by the plaintiff-petitioner.3. learned counsel for the defendant-respondents on the other hand supported the order passed by the trial court.4. it was not disputed by learned counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner that the applicants were co-owners in the suit property. each co-sharer has a right to contest and defend his possession which is being claimed from him. the trial court while allowing the application had noticed as under:-“5. i have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judicial file very carefully. from the careful perusal of file it reveals that respondent/plaintiff paramjeet singh filed this suit against beant singh and prem kumar for possession of shop on the ground that plaintiff paramjeet singh purchased 1/4th share of the said property from jasbir kaur daughter of ajnandan singh vide registered sale deed dated 17.11.1995 and thus the plaintiff became the owner of the ½ share of the above said property and after redemption of the suit property, the plaintiff came into possession of whole property.6. the counsel for the applicants, has strongly argued c.r.no.2029 o”3. that they are owner in possession being co-sharer and as per the order of hon’ble high court the entitlement of shares of each of the co-sharer is left to be determined in the appropriate proceedings, which may be filed by the co-owners of the suit property, at the time of claiming partition and separate possession of the suit land.7. learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon 2007(4) civil court cases 321 wherein hon’ble bombay high court held that if a person has a right or interest in the subject matter of suit then such a person is a necessary party. it is well established law that the co- mortgagor can be a co-owner too. one of the co- mortgagors, by redeeming the mortgage in its entirety cannot claim a right higher than what he otherwise had faced with a claim for partition by the other co-owner.8. plaintiff/respond himself admits the facts that the present applicants to determine the share they have right to file suit for partition. it means that applicants have right in the suit property. so, if a person right or interest in the subject matter of suit then such a person is a necessary party.”5. no error or perversity could be pointed out in the order dated 9.11.2009 passed by the trial court warranting interference by this court.6. finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed. however, the trial court is directed to make sincere efforts for expeditious disposal of the suit. november 14, 2011 (ajay kumar mittal) ‘gs’ judge
Judgment:

C.R.No.2029 o”

1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2029 of 2010 Date of decision:

14. 11.2011 Paramjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus Karambir Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Vineet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. V.K.Sandhir, Advocate for respondent No.4. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J.

1. The plaintiff-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 9.11.2009 passed by the trial Court whereby an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, “the Code”.) was allowed which was filed on behalf of the applicants - Karambir Singh, Suraj Balram Singh and Kanwaljit Kaur, sons and daughter of Umrao Singh through their General Power of Attorney Swinder Singh Chhina. A prayer was made for impleading the said applicants as defendants in a suit for possession filed by the plaintiff-petitioner with the averments that the applicants were owners to the extent of 2/3rd share in the suit property and also other property and possession thereof. It was further asserted that there was earlier litigation between the present applicants and the plaintiff-petitioner Paramjit Singh with respect to C.R.No.2029 o”

2. the suit property out of which RSA No.3552 of 2001 was finally adjudicated by this Court on 24.1.2006 in which it was said that the entitlement and share of each of the co-sharer was left to be determined in appropriate proceedings. It was, thus, claimed that the order was perfectly justified in impleading the applicants as defendants in the suit.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the applicants were neither necessary not proper parties and the trial Court erred in impleading them as defendant-respondents. It was claimed that the application was filed just to delay the decision of the suit whereby possession had been claimed by the plaintiff-petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the defendant-respondents on the other hand supported the order passed by the trial Court.

4. It was not disputed by learned counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner that the applicants were co-owners in the suit property. Each co-sharer has a right to contest and defend his possession which is being claimed from him. The trial court while allowing the application had noticed as under:-

“5. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judicial file very carefully. From the careful perusal of file it reveals that respondent/plaintiff Paramjeet Singh filed this suit against Beant Singh and Prem Kumar for possession of shop on the ground that plaintiff Paramjeet Singh purchased 1/4th share of the said property from Jasbir Kaur daughter of Ajnandan Singh vide registered sale deed dated 17.11.1995 and thus the plaintiff became the owner of the ½ share of the above said property and after redemption of the suit property, the plaintiff came into possession of whole property.

6. The counsel for the applicants, has strongly argued C.R.No.2029 o”

3. that they are owner in possession being co-sharer and as per the order of Hon’ble High Court the entitlement of shares of each of the co-sharer is left to be determined in the appropriate proceedings, which may be filed by the co-owners of the suit property, at the time of claiming partition and separate possession of the suit land.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon 2007(4) Civil court Cases 321 wherein Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that if a person has a right or interest in the subject matter of suit then such a person is a necessary party. It is well established law that the co- mortgagor can be a co-owner too. One of the co- mortgagors, by redeeming the mortgage in its entirety cannot claim a right higher than what he otherwise had faced with a claim for partition by the other co-owner.

8. Plaintiff/respond himself admits the facts that the present applicants to determine the share they have right to file suit for partition. It means that applicants have right in the suit property. So, if a person right or interest in the subject matter of suit then such a person is a necessary party.”

5. No error or perversity could be pointed out in the order dated 9.11.2009 passed by the trial court warranting interference by this Court.

6. Finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to make sincere efforts for expeditious disposal of the suit. November 14, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge