HARCHARAN SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order of mine disposes of G.M. No. 2471 of 1995 in C.W.P. No. 8811 of 1993 filed under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. by Sarvashri Sudagar Singh, Shingara Singh and Balwinder Singh sons of Gurdev Singh, residents of village Uppal Kheri, Tehsil Malerkotla, containing the prayer that they may be added as co-respondents in the above Civil Writ Petition, titled Harcharan Singh v. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab.

(2.) It has been averred in the application dated 27-2-1995 that the applicants had purchased land measuring 13 Bighas, 15 Biswas comprised in Khewat No. 106/233, Khasra Nos. 999/359, 357 (6-5), 358 (6-5), Kitta (3) Area 13-15 Bigha from Kulwinder Singh son of Harcharan Singh, writ petitioner No. 2, as this land was owned and possessed by him. He executed sale deed in favour of the applicants on 10-11-1989 and it was registered with the Sub-Registrar at Malerkotla on 15-11-1989 for a sum of Rs. 86,000/-. Said Kulwinder Singh also handed over the possession of the land mentioned in the sale deed to the present applicants. The applicants alleged that the writ petitioners Harcharan Singh and Kulwinder Singh are colluding with each other, and they were fully aware that the present applicants have become the owner and in possession of the land sold by Kulwinder Singh petitioner, but in spite of that the petitioners filed the writ petition without joining the applicants as co-respondents. It is further averred that since the applicants have become the co-sharers, therefore, in order to safeguard their interests, they are the necessary parties in the writ petition, so that the matter may be finally and effectually adjudicated. Status quo order has been passed in the writ petition and for this reason the applicants are not entered in the Khasra girdawaries in spite of the fact that they are in possession of the land purchased by them in pursuance of the sale deed. Even the mutation on the basis of the sale deed executed by Kulwinder Singh has not been entered in their favour. The non-impleadment of the applicants would affect their rights, especially when Kulwinder Singh and his father Harcharan Singh are bent upon harming their interests.

(3.) Notice of the application was given to the respondents/writ petitioners, who filed the reply and denied the allegations. According to the respondents the applicants had no right to become parties to the litigation, as the litigation between the co-sharers was going on for the last 15 years and the applicants *had purchased the property with open eyes. The writ petitioners admit that the applicants had purchased some parcel of the land from Kulwinder Singh petitioner but their purchase is during the pendency of the litigation and as such they are bound by the principles of lis penden. The litigation regarding the land started 15 years back, whereas the applicants purchased some portion of the land about 7 years back. According to the writ petitioners, the applicants are neither the necessary parties nor they are the proper parties, rather they would be bound by the result of the litigation. Separate reply was also filed by respondent No. 5 who stated that the present application under Order 1, Rule 10, C. P.C. was not legally maintainable as it has been filed with a mala fide intention to harass the private respondents and to delay the disposal of the writ petition. The present applicants alleged themselves to be the successor-in-interest of Kulwinder Singh writ petitioner and as such they cannot have better right than that of petitioner No. 2. The sale deed relied upon by the applicants was without any authority and was in violation of the stay order. The applicants are neither the owners nor in possession of the suit land and as such they have no interest. They are neither necessary nor the proper parties.