Civil Revision No. 967 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Civil Revision No. 967 of 2009 Date of decision: 6.05.2009. Sudarshan Sewa Trust Petitioner Versus Sukhdev Singh and others ...Respondents 2. Civil Revision No. 1257 of 2009 Sudarshan Sewa Trust Petitioner Versus Sukhdev Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 to 5 Mr. Sanjeev Ghai, Advocate for the respondents No.7 to 9 ***** S.D.ANAND, J. 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 Civil Revision No. 967 of 2009 -2- **** 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”. The petitioner-trust filed the plea under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Revision No. 967 of 2009 -3- **** 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). 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. 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. Shri Ashok Aggarwal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argued that the impugned gift deed being Civil Revision No. 967 of 2009 -4- **** 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 and the ejectment plea came to be dismissed as withdrawn. It was also the grievance of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the learned Trial Court committed grave error of law in having proceeded to record a finding about the validity of the gift deed. In an act of resistance, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents went whole-hog in favour of the line of reasoning recorded by the learned Trial Court in declining the plea under reference. There can be no dispute about the proposition that plaintiffs cannot be compelled to fight with a party against whom no relief has been claimed by the former. At the same time, the essential purpose of the law to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings and to ensure that all the parties having semblance of the interest in the suit property are represented at the trial to enable the Court to adjudicate upon the controversy completely and effectually. The entire approach of the learned Trial Court appears to suggest as if the petitioner herein is an absolute foreigner to the property in suit. Infact, the material obtaining on the file is not supportive of that finding. Annexure P-5 is a copy of the statement made by Shri Kanav Khanna, partner of M/s Vishnu MMS Processor, vide which the arrears of rent for a period for a period of 78 months and three Civil Revision No. 967 of 2009 -5- **** future months (with effect from 30.6.2008 onwards) was paid to the petitioner-trust. Annexure P-6 is a copy of statement dated 9.4.2008 made by Avinash Mohindro, trustee of the petitioner-trust withdrawing the petition in the light of the payment of rent due for the aforesaid period. It would be pertinent to notice here that the plaintiffs- respondents (in the present cause) had sought the restraint of M/s Vishnu Process and Shri Kanav Khanna( to whom Annexures P-5 and P-6 relate) and Madhu Khanna from raising any construction on the property in suit and, as already noticed, had also sought is the restraint of Avinash Mohindro (the trustee through whom the present petition has been filed) from interfering in the property in suit or from entering upon it forcibly and illegally “in his individual or in any other capacity”. It is not the plea that M/s Vishnu Processor and Sh. Kanav Khanna are in possession of any other premise owned by the Trust as well. There is, thus, a presumptive inference that two respondents aforementioned are in possession of the premises in suit, as tenants, and they are being paying the rent to the petitioner- trust. Even at the cost of repetition, it may be noticed here that it was the plea of none else or other than the plaintiffs-respondents that the premises in dispute is under the possession of M/s Vishnu Processor (respondent No.7 herein and defendant no.2 therein). The learned Trial Court tried to make light of it by observing that the ejectment plea aforementioned had been filed by the Trust as a landlord and not as owner of that property. Even if that be so, the plaintiffs-respondents cannot be heard to aver that the petitioner-trust is foreign to the property in issue. For Civil Revision No. 967 of 2009 -6- **** adjudication of a plea under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. even that fact would suffice for the allowance thereof. It would be pertinent to notice here that the proceedings (to which Annexures P-6 and P-6 are relatable) pertained to the period prior to the controversy in the cause before this Court. It was neither here not there for the learned Trial Court to observe that the gift deed had not seen the light of the day till date it was produced before the Court. As already indicated, the trust deed is a registered document and so also is the gift deed. The registration of a document amounts to an announcement of the factum thereof to the whole world. The petitioner-trust has been indicated to have been realising the rent for the premises in issue from M/s Vishnu Processor. There was no need for them to get the gift deed documented in the revenue record. If it is assumed, for the sake of arguments that they were required to notify the same in the revenue record, the mere refrain on their part in the relevant behalf would not invalidate the impugned gift deed. The following facts are, thus, apparent from the above discussion:- 1) The petitioner trust derives its title from a registered gift deed. 2) The petitioner trust had launched ejectment proceedings against the respondents no.7 and 8 herein and those proceedings were withdrawn on the tender of due rent (and also future rent for the indicated period) by them. Civil Revision No. 967 of 2009 -7- **** 3) In the context of the facts noticed under item no.2, it may be pointed out that it was the own plea of the plaintiffs-respondents that the property in suit is in the possession of respondent no.7 herein (who had been sued through respondent no.8 herein). That averment prima facie takes care of the dispute about the identification of the property in suit. In the light of the foregoing discussion, these petitions shall stand allowed. The impugned order shall stand set aside. The plea by the petitioner-trust, for its impleadment as a party, shall shall stand allowed. It is made clear otherwise that observations made by this Court, in the course of this order, shall not tantamount to any expression of opinion on the validity or otherwise of the documents relied upon by the parties in the course of their respective pleadings at the trial. May 06, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge