SITARAM SAH Vs. ISLAM MIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the plaintiff of a redemption suit (title suit No. 4 of 1967) pending in the Court of the 1st Additional Munsif, at Motibari. The suit was instituted by him for redemption of two zerpeshgis both dated the 6th July, 1962, one for Rs. 400/- in respect of Schedule I land and the other for Rs. 300/- in respect of Schedule II land. Both these deeds were executed by Nathuni Mian, defendant No. 7, hi favour of Welayat Mian since deceased. The case of the plaintiff is that on the 7th September, 1964 Nathuni. Mian, defendant No. 7, had sold the equity of redemption in the mortgaged land the total area of which is 8 kathas 17 dhurs in village Banjaria to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 1770/-. After the death of Welayat Mian the plaintiff tendered the mortgage money to his heirs, namely, defendant first party who declined to accept the mortgage money and gave up possession over the zarpeshgi land. Thereupon the plaintiff instituted the instant suit wherein he also impleaded defendants 4 to 6 as second party defendants on the allegation that it was in pursuance of collusion with them that the heirs of Welayat Mian had declined to accept the mortgage money tendered to them by the plaintiff.

(2.) Written statements were filed in the suit both by Nathuni Mian, defendant No. 7, and by defendants second party. Nathuni Mian, defendant No. 7 substantially supported the plaintiff's case. Defendant second party, however, set up a paramount title in the suit land in themselves. They alleged that Sakhawat, the father of Nathuni Mian, was the real owner of the property, by virtue of a purchase made by him in May, 1937 and on the 17th November, 1964 the said Sakhawat Mian had sold the suit land to defendants 4 to 6 under two sale deeds of that date.

(3.) Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a petition for striking out the names of defendants 4 to 6 from the records of the suit. This prayer was made on the ground that defendants 4 to 6 had set up a paramount title over the suit land which was foreign to the scope of the plaintiff's suit which was a simple suit for redemption by the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Munsif on the 2nd February, 1971, this prayer of the plaintiff has been rejected substantially on the following ground: