*1* chs.1079.10.s.487.09 kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1079 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO.487 OF 2009 Munir Ahmed Noor Mohamed. ..Plaintiff -Versus- Mohammed Ansar Mohd. and others. ..Defendants .......... R.D.Misra, for the Plaintiff. Mohan N. Dhamal, for the Applicants. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 06th December, 2010. P.C. 1 This is a Chamber Summons for joinder of the Applicants as party Defendants. 2 The Plaintiff claims to be in use, occupation and possession of the building consisting of ground and two upper floors constructed on leasehold land which premises are more particularly described in paragraph No.1 of the plaint. It is stated that one Ardesar Hormasji Wadia was the owner of the land and he executed the deed of lease dated 15.03.1961 in favour of (1) Jaan Mohamed Meherali, (2) Abdul Razak Meherali and (3) Noor Mohamed Meherali jointly, a copy of lease deed is annexed at Exhibit-A to the plaint and it is stated that the said Jan, Abdul and Noor constructed the building thereon and the same was assessed to the Corporation taxes. The Plaintiff states that his father during his lifetime and after his death, the Plaintiff has been paying the taxes. The *2* chs.1079.10.s.487.09 Plaintiff has stated that Abdul Razak Meherali died on 19.08.1967 leaving behind him the only daughter Nazma Abdul Razak and the said Nazma Abdul Razak by an affidavit dated 01.07.2007 transferred and released her right, title and interest in respect of the suit premises to the Plaintiff. It is stated that another brother of Abdul Razak, namely, Jan Mohamed Meherali died in 1967 leaving behind him no heirs as he was unmarried. The Plaintiff’s father Noor Mohemad Meherali died on 02.02.1998 leaving behind the Plaintiff alone as his heir and legal representative. It is in such circumstances and seeking a declaration in his favour that the land belongs exclusively to him, that the instant suit is filed. 3 In fact the claim is that the building belongs exclusively to the Plaintiff and is lessee of the land. 4 The Chamber Summons is filed by two Applicants one of whom claims through Peer Mohamed and other claims through Jan Mohamed. It is stated that the family was headed by Late Meherali Suleman Qureshi who has four sons namely (1) Peer Mohd. Meherali, (2) Jaan Mohd. Meherali, (3) Abdul Razak Meherali and (4) Noor Mohd. Meherali. It is stated that Peer Mohd. Meherali expired in 1950 leaving behind the Applicant No.1 as his only legal heir. It is stated that Jaan Mohd. expired in 1967 leaving behind him the Applicant No.2 as his only heir and legal representative. However, the Plaintiff does not dispute this fact in the plaint and on the contrary, the Plaintiff asserts that Jaan Mohd. was unmarried and expired leaving behind no heir. In such circumstances that the claim is denied by the Applicants. 5 Mr.Dhamal, learned counsel in support of this Chamber Summons, submits that whether Jaan Mohd. died without leaving his heir or whether the Applicant No.2 is his only heir or not, are the matters which must be decided after giving opportunity to the Applicants. The fact *3* chs.1079.10.s.487.09 remains that there are other sharers in the property to the knowledge of Plaintiff but he has refused to join them. The Plaintiff admits that Peer Mohd. died leaving behind the Applicant No.1 but the claim of Applicant No.2 is disputed. 6 After perusing the application and annexures thereto, so also, the reply, I am of the opinion that considering the nature of the reliefs, the Applicants’ presence would be necessary. The Plaintiff does not dispute that he claims through Noor Mohd. who is one of the lessee under the deed of lease dated 15.03.1961 and others being Jaan Mohd. and Abdul Razak. The Applicants in the affidavit in support have pointed out that the property extract card shows that the names of members of joint family are not properly shown by the Plaintiff. It is stated that the joint family consisted of four sons, namely, Jaan Mohd., Abdul Razak, Noor Mohd. and Abdul Majid Peer. Peer’s name is not there because he expired sometime in the year 1950 leaving behind the Applicant No.1 as his sole surviving heir but he was not shown as party to the fresh lease. There was earlier lease. This fact is disputed by the Plaintiff and he says that there is no question of earlier lease and once the lease is executed in the year 1961, Peer could not have been party thereto as he died in 1950. However, the Plaintiff does not dispute that Jaan was one of the lessee. It is case of the Plaintiff that he died without leaving any heir or issue as he was unmarried. However, the Applicants have produced the documents to show that Applicant No.2 (Shabbir) succeeded to the estate of Jaan. 7 In such circumstances and to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings and to have complete and effective adjudication, so also, enforceable decree, it would be necessary to join the Applicants as party Defendants to the suit. By their joinder alone, the facts as alleged are not admitted. Considering that the name of Jaan Mohd. is appearing as lessee *4* chs.1079.10.s.487.09 in the record, it would be necessary for effective adjudication of the controversy, that the Applicants should be before the Court. In these circumstances, this Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Amended plaint to be served within two weeks thereafter. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)