*1* chs.647-08 in s.2489-07-903 pmw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.647 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.2489 OF 2007 Samta Industrial Developers ... Plaintiffs -versus- Hiralal B. Patel ... Defendant -and- Mrs. Stella A. Machado and others ... Applicants (Intervenors) Mr. N.K. Mudnaney, Advocate for the Plaintiffs. Mr. S.B. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Applicants. .............. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Dated : 5th December, 2011 P.C. : 1. This Chamber Summons was placed for dismissal today. However, in the light of the apology tendered by Shri Deshmukh that the matter was taken up and decided by the present order. 2. Mr. Mudnaney appearing for plaintiff submitted that this chamber summons is taken out by the applicants seeking their joinder as party defendants to the suit. *2* chs.647-08 in s.2489-07-903 3. They are claiming a relief of intervention at the time of hearing of this suit as well as to intervene in the notice of motion which is moved for interim relief by the plaintiff. 4. It is argued on behalf of the applicants that they are heirs and legal representatives of one Anthony Machado. My attention is invited to para 12 of the plaint and it is submitted by Mr. Deshmukh appearing for the applicants that the plaintiffs have stated in this paragraph that Anthony was engaged as contractor by the erstwhile owners for the purposes set out in para 12. In course of time the heirs and legal representatives of the said Anthony Machado started falsely claiming certain rights in said property and legal representatives of said Anthony Machado have instituted various suits in Small Causes Court including the Application in the instant suit. It is stated that the said Anthony or his heirs have no right, title and interest in the said larger property and, therefore, the defendant also has no right. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Deshmukh that if this is the version of the plaintiff themselves then, the heirs and legal representatives of the Anthony, namely, the applicants are necessary parties to the suit which is for possession or title. It is in these circumstances and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to enable this court to pass a complete, effective and proper decree, it is submitted that the applicants be joined as party defendants. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Mudnaney appearing for plaintiffs submits that the suit is not filed against the applicants or, their predecessor in title. Instant suit is filed against Hiralal B. Patel. While narrating as to how the plaintiffs have derived right, title and interest in the property, What has been stated is that the plaintiffs are purchaser for value without *3* chs.647-08 in s.2489-07-903 notice of alleged claim of the defendant. It is pointed out as to how the defendant has tried to inter-meddle with the rights of the plaintiff in the larger property and that is how he was inducted by the erstwhile owners stating that he is one of such persons other than the said Anthony claiming to be inducted by the owners that the narration and reference to several suits and the said Anthony is made. It is submitted by Mr. Mudnaney that the plaintiffs will succeed on the basis of their title and the averments in that behalf have to be proved by them. The larger property is owned by a Charitable Trust which was registered under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The right, title and interest in the property was absolute and nobody is entitled to this property. If the property has been transferred by the trust to the plaintiff, then anybody who is interfering with the right of the plaintiff has no title to the property and the defendant is one such person. In these circumstances, according to Mr.Mudnaney, applicants may have independent claim in the property, but they cannot be said to be a necessary party to the present suit. 7. After hearing Mr. Mudnaney and Mr. Deshmukh at some length and perusing their assistance, the plaint and the annexures thereof so also the chamber summons and the affidavit in reply, I am of the opinion that the chamber summons deserves to be dismissed. It is clear from the averments in the plaint that the plaintiff has filed the suit against Mr. H.B. Patel. The plaintiffs claim to be owners of a large immovable property or piece and parcel of land together with structures and more particularly described in para 8 and annexure “A” to the plaint. A part of the property admeasuring 5,200 sq. ft. equivalent to 483 sq. meters is claimed by the defendant together with structure thereon. The suit concerns this part of the property. After tracing the title of the plaintiff there is a reference made to several claims which were not to the knowledge of the plaintiff. The *4* chs.647-08 in s.2489-07-903 plaintiff claims to have acquired the property from a Public Charitable Trust in pursuance to the order passed by the Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Bombay, under section 36 of Public Charitable Trust, 1950. It is in such circumstances that I am of the opinion that if the applicant is claiming any part or portion of this larger property which is of the ownership of the plaintiff, then, there remedy is to file their substantive proceeding claiming title and pray for relief based thereon in such a suit or proceeding. The plaintiff claims that the smaller portion of the larger property is claimed by the defendant to this suit without any right, title or interest and they came to know of the claim of the defendant when they were served with certain proceedings. It is while narrating that act of the defendant that there is a reference made to the City Civil Court Suit in para 12 of the plaint. If there is a reference to that suit which is stated to have been filed by the defendant to the present suit claiming to oust somebody from the defendant’s property, then, any parties to the said suit in the Civil Civil Court or anybody claiming through the said Anthony will have to stake their independent claim or right in the property which is the subject matter of this suit. It is not possible to implead the applicants to this chamber summons as party defendants because, in my opinion, there presence is not necessary for effective and proper resolution of the dispute or controversy in the suit nor for passing of a complete and executable decree. In such circumstances and when the applicants are not claiming through the defendant to the present suit but through somebody else or one Anthony Machado then there remedy lies elsewhere. They cannot force themselves on the plaintiff in the instant suit. The plaintiff will have to succeed on the basis of its own title and which it has proved by leading oral and documentary evidence. In the instant circumstances, the applicants need not have any apprehension because even now they can proceed and file there substantive proceedings. Once it is clarified as above, then, the *5* chs.647-08 in s.2489-07-903 chamber summons filed is misconceived and it is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)