Civil Revision No. 1624 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1624 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.10.2009 Gulab Singh ....Petitioner versus Bhagt Ram and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Munish Mittal, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 and 4. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) CM No. 7096-CII of 2009 Allowed. The applicant-petitioner is exempted from filing the certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-5. CR No. 1624 of 2009 The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 27.2.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamunanagar at Jagadhri, vide which the application moved by the petitioner for being impleaded as a party in a suit filed by Bhagat Ram against Subhash Chand etc., has been ordered to be dismissed. Civil Revision No. 1624 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed a suit for declaration claiming to be the joint tenant with defendant No. 1 over the suit land since Bhangi Ram father of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 and defendant No. 1, was in cultivating possession of the land as tenant. The suit was filed on the basis of inheritance of tenancy. The petitioner moved application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the plea, that defendant No. 1 had relinquished his possession in favour of the applicant on 17.11.1995 for consideration of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only), and an agreement, affidavit and receipt were executed. The applicant, thus, claimed that he was in possession of the land in dispute and his crops were standing at the spot. The application was opposed by taking a plea, that tenancy right was inherited by plaintiff and defendant No. 1, and they were in the possession of the land in dispute and, therefore, the applicant was neither proper nor necessary party to the suit. Defendant No. 1 also contested the claim in application and denied having relinquished the possession of the land in favour of the applicant. Defendants No. 2 and 3 took a stand that the actual physical possession of the land was with Bhangi Ram father of plaintiff and defendant No. 1. It was claimed by defendants No. 2 and 3, that Bhangi Ram had relinquished his tenancy rights in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3. It was pleaded that defendant No. 1 was recorded as tenant in the revenue record, and a petition for his ejectment was filed by the land owners before A.C. 1st Grade, Jagadhri. Civil Revision No. 1624 of 2009 (O&M) -3- The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that presence of the petitioner was not necessary to adjudicate the dispute raised in the suit, therefore, he was neither necessary nor proper party and dismissed the application. Mr. R.S. Mamli, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Civil Revision No. 6014 of 2007 titled Gulab Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on August 25, 2008, to contend that qua the dispute regarding acquisition of this land, the petitioner was ordered to be impleaded as party. This Court was pleased to hold, that as the petitioner was claiming possession over the land, he was required to be impleaded as a party in a petition under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended, that in any case, once the petitioner was claiming right through defendant No. 1, his presence was necessary for adjudication of the dispute. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, opposed the petition primarily on the plea, that the suit filed by the plaintiff is only to claim right of inheritance of tenancy with defendant No. 1. Even if for the sake of argument it is taken that defendant No. 1 had relinquished his rights in favour of the applicant, still the right of the plaintiff in a suit would not be affected, as the plaintiff would have an independent right of inheritance along with defendant No. 1 being son of Bhangi Ram, who was admittedly the tenant over the suit property. There can be no dispute with the proposition that the plaintiff would Civil Revision No. 1624 of 2009 (O&M) -4- have right of inheritance along with defendant No. 1 to the tenancy right of Bhangi Ram and after that Subhach Chand could not transfer more than what he inherited, even if it is expected that there was any such transfer. But still once the claim of possession was raised by the applicant on the basis of documentary evidence, though disputed, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not at least proper party to the dispute raised in the plaint. Keeping in view the decision of this Court in Civil Revision No. 6014 of 2007 (supra), which was also inter se between the parties, this revision is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the application moved by the petitioner for being impleaded as party under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed but with no order as to costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge October 23, 2009 R.S.