Gopal Mohan Vadhera vs Jagdish Rai Vadhera And Ors.
1999 Latest Caselaw 301 Del

JUDGMENT

K.S. Gupta, J.

1. This appeal by the plaintiff-appellant is directed against the order dated 20th September, 1995 of a Single Judge whereby in IA No. 15125/1991 under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC Subash Mohan Vadhera, respondent No. 2 was allowed to be imp leaded as a defendant in the suit.

2. Suit for partition was filed by the plaintiff against his father Jagdish Rai Vadhera, defendant-respondent No. 1, inter alia, alleging that the freehold plot of land measuring 413.3 sq. yards with a house built thereon bearing No. B-16 (New 16/16) at Alipur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi, was purchased jointly by the plaintiff and defendant for a total consideration of Rs. 1,60,000/- under a registered sale deed dated 13.10.1971 from Rajinder Parshad & others. Half of the amount of the sale consideration was paid by the plaintiff and of this own resources/earnings. Parties to the suit are staying in the said house. Although both the parties have separate kitchen yet due to temperamental differences between them, it is not possible to stay in the house jointly and it is in the fitness of things if the house is partitioned in equal shares. Plaintiff requested the defendant on several occasions to effect the partition of the house in equal shares amicably but he has been unable to do so on one pretext or the other.

3. In the written statement, it is, inter alia, pleaded that the plaintiff's share in the house in question was purchased with the joint funds of Hindu undivided family known as M/s. Jagdish Rai Vadhera & Sons.This HUF comprises of the plaintiff, Smt. Ram Piari, Gajendra Mohan Vadhera and Subash Mohan Vadhera and the suit had for non-joinder of the other members of the HUF. It is denied that half amount of the sale consideration was paid by the plaintiff out of his own resources/earnings as alleged. It is claimed that the suit for partition is not maintainable.

4. Aforesaid IA 15125/1991 under Order 1, Rule 10(2) was filed by Subash Mohan Vadhera, respondent No. 1 in the appeal, alleging that the house in question was purchased by the contributions of members of the HUF--M/s. Jagdish Rai Vadhera & Sons of which he is one of the members. One room, toilet and tin shed on the ground floor of the house are in his exclusive possession. He is also having common possession of kitchen, drawing and dinning room, open space and toilet etc. Respondent No. 2 still continues to be the member of the HUF. Suit is being contested by the defendant and one of the objection taken in the written statement by him is in regard to the non-joinder of other members of the HUF. It is further stated that for the last few days the entire family

has started maltreating respondent No. 2 and his family members. The plaintiff and the defendant have further threatened to get a collusive decree behind his back who has a substantial right in the ownership of the house in question. It is this application which was allowed by the Single Judge in terms of the impugned order.

5. Submissions advanced by Mr. P.K. Seth appearing for the plaintiff was that the plaintiff is the Dominus Litus and he had not imp leaded a person against whom he has not sought any relief. Impugned order of impleadment of respondent No. 2 against whom no relief has been claimed in the plaint as a defendant, is therefore, bad in law.

6. The power of the Court to add parties under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC came up for consideration before the Supreme Court Razia Begum v. Sohebzadi Anvar Begum, (1959) SCR 1111. In that case, it was held that the Courts in India have not treated the matter of addition of parties as raising any question of the initial jurisdiction of the Court and that it is estate as a result of judicial decision that in order that a person may be added as party to a suit, he should have a direct interest in the suit and in matter of the litigation, whether it be relating to movable or immovable property. Parties in Ramesh Hira Chand Kundamwal v. Municipal Corporation of Guntur Bombay and Ors.,] 1992(2)SC 116

7. It may be noticed that the plea raised in IA15125/1991 that the house in question was purchased with the funds of HUF--M/s. Jagdish Rai Vadhera and sons is also the main defense on which the suit is being contested by the defendant, father of the plaintiff and respondent No. 2. In the present case subject matter of the litigation is the house in question whereof partition in equal shares has been sought by the plaintiff. Applying the ratio in Razia Begums case (supra), respondent No. 2 is a necessary party to the suit, he being one of the members of the said HUF with whose funds the said house is alleged to have been purchased in the joint name of the plaintiff and the defendant under the sale deed dated 13.10.1971. Impugned order thus does not suffer from any legal infirmity which may call for interference in appeal by this Court.

Appeal has no force and is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.