SINGAR KANWAR Vs. DHOOPCHAND
LAWS(RAJ)-1952-9-18
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on September 11,1952

SINGAR KANWAR Appellant
VERSUS
DHOOPCHAND Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SRILA SRI SUBRAMANIYA DESIKA GENANA,SAMBANDA PANDARA SANNADHI VS. R. ANANTHAKRISHNASWAMI NAIDU [REFERRED TO]
N T PALANISAMY CHETTIAR VS. KOMARA CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
PRAVAT CHANDRA GIRI VS. AMULYA CHANDRA BAHADURI [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS. RAJ KUMARI [LAWS(RAJ)-1968-7-28] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Dave, J. - (1.)THIS is an application in revision by the plaintiff Mst. Singar Kanwar against the order of Munsif, East Jaipur, dated the 20th October, 1951. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of rent against the defendant opposite party on the basis of a rent note dated the 31st October, 1947 executed by him in her favour. It was averred that the defendant had paid to her rent till 19th October, 1948, so she claimed Rs. 293/5/3 for arrears of rent from 20th October, 1948 to 9th January, 1950. The defendant opposite party admitted the rent-note but it was pleaded that he had executed it under undue influence, that the real landlord of the property was one Hari Singh who was an adopted son of the plaintiff's husband Beri Sal Singh. Hari Singh also filed a petition before the trial court that he should be impleaded as a party in this case. The trial court therefore passed an order on the 20th October, 1951 directing the plaintiff to implead Hari Singh as a defendant. It is against this order that the plaintiff has come to this Court in revision.
(2.)IT is contended by the applicant's learned advocate that Hari Singh is not a necessary party, that the question regarding the validity of his adoption would unnecessarily be raised in the present suit, that the trial court has committed material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in allowing a third party to set up his title in a rent suit and therefore, it, only should be set aside. The opposite party who is present in person has not been able to justify the order of the trial court with reference to any law.
In the case of Lodai Mohallah vs. Kally Doss Roy (1) (I. L. R. VIII Cal series P. 238.), it was observed by their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court that where a person sued for rent sets up the title of a third party and alleges that he holds under, any pays rent to him, such third party ought not to be made a party to the suit so as to convert a simple suit for arrears of rent into one for the determination of the title to the property in respect of which the rent is claimed. This view was later approved by the learned judges of the same High Court in the case of Pravat Chandra Giri vs. Amulya Chandra Bhaduri (2) (A I. R. 1927 Cal. P. 340. ). In the case of Srila Sri Subramaniya Desika Ganana, Sambanda Pandara Sannadhi vs. R. Ananthakrishnaswami Naidu (3) (A. I. R. 1932 Mad. 688.), it was held that in an ejectment suit on basis of lease deed, prima facie persons claiming adverse rights to the plaintiff's title should not be made parties in the absence of special circumstances. In the case of N. T. Palanisany Chettiar by agent V. D. Seetarama Mudaliar vs. Komara Chettiar and others (4), it was further observed that in an application under Order 1, rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, the Court should consider mainly whether the presence of the proposed parties would be necessary for adjudicating upon the questions that are involved in the suit and an order for addition of parties should not be made merely with a view to avoid multiplicity of suits if otherwise their presence is not necessary for determining the real question involved in the suit.

In the present case, the plaintiff applicant had vehemently objected in the trial court that Hari Singh should not be impleaded as a party, but the learned Munsif dismissed that objection and allowed the defendant's prayer on the simple ground that if Hari Singh is not made a party, he will bring another suit to establish his title and it is desirable to avoid multiplicity of the suits. It may be pointed out that as observed in the case of N. T. Palanisamy Chettiar by agent V. D. Seetarama Mudaliar vs. Komara Chettiar and others (4) (A. I. R. 1920 Mad. 91.), quoted above, the mere reason to avoid multiplicity of suits is neither sufficient nor proper to guide the court in determining whether a certain party is necessary and it should be impleaded. This is a simple rent suit and the defendant has admitted in his written statement the execution of the rent-note in favour of the plaintiff. He only says that it was executed under some undue influence and therefore, the trial court has to decide whether, the applicant had executed the rent-note on account of undue influence as alleged and whether he was liable to pay the arrears of rent as claimed by the plaintiff. If Hari Singh is allowed to be impleaded as a defendant, questions of his title including the factum and validity of his adoption would unnecessarily arise in this simple case. The trial court's order does not appear to be correct.

The application is therefore, allowed and the trial court's order directing Hari Singh to be impleaded as a defendant is set aside. Costs will abide the result of the suit. .



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.