C.R. No. 6808 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 6808 of 2011 Date of Decision: 8.11.2011 Smt. Manbhari and another ....Petitioners. Versus Vinodi Devi and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. A.K. Singh Goyat, Advocate for the petitioners. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. The plaintiffs-petitioners have approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 23.8.2011 whereby an application filed by Vinodi Devi-respondent No.1 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “the Code”) for impleading as a party being proper and necessary party to the suit had been allowed. 2. It was claimed that respondent No.1 had purchased 3 kanals 19 marlas of land out of the suit land from Narender Kumar son of Harish Chander vide registered sale deed dated 14.5.2007 and has, thus, become co-sharer in the suit land. According to her she had a right to become a party to the present suit for possession by way of partition being a co-sharer. 3. The said prayer was opposed by the plaintiffs on the C.R. No. 6808 of 2011 -2- ground that respondent No.1 was not a necessary party. 4. The trial court while allowing the application of respondent No.1 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code had recorded as under:- “The present suit has been filed by the respondents/ plaintiffs for possession by way of partition of the suit land measuring 12 kanal 7 marla and 7 kanal 19 marla of land situated at Nangal Chaudhary as detailed in the head note of the plaint. Plaintiff no.1 has claimed herself to be owner of 106/406 shares and plaintiff no.2 has claimed herself to be owner of 25/406 shares out of the suit property. The applicant has purchased 3 kanal 7 marla land out of the suit land which is sought to be got partitioned by the plaintiffs. The fact as to whether vendor of the applicant was legally entitled to sell the land or not can only be decided after the parties are given an opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective contentions. The question as to whether Simbhu Singh sold the land more than his share in the joint khewat and the facts as to who is the last vendee who would suffer on account of sale of excess share by Simbhu Singh could only be determined after the parties lead evidence. Since applicant has purchased a share out of the suit land from one of the alleged co-sharers, the applicant is not only a necessary but proper party for adjudicating C.R. No. 6808 of 2011 -3- the controversy involved in the present suit between the parties. The share of all the co-sharers in the joint property are to be determined in the present case. As such all the co-sharers are necessary and proper party in a partition suit. Accordingly, it is held that applicant is a necessary and proper party for adjudicating the controversy involved in the present suit between the parties. Therefore, the application in hand is allowed and applicant Vinodi Devi is ordered to be impleaded as defendant no.14 in the present case.” 5. In view of the sale deed dated 14.5.2007 in favour of respondent No.1 and suit being for possession by partition, all the co- sharers are proper and necessary parties in such a suit. It could not be disputed that all the persons who are claiming themselves to be owners are necessary and proper parties in a suit for possession by way of partition. Learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to show any illegality or perversity in the observations of the trial court which may warrant interference by this Court. The trial court would adjudicate rights of each party at the time of passing a preliminary decree. In such a situation, the order passed by the trial court cannot be faulted. 6. Accordingly, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. November 8, 2011 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE