Balwant Rai vs Lt. Gian Singh and Others

Mian Jalal-ud-din, Ag., C.J.—In a suit for ejectment pending before the Sub Judge, Jammu, the Petitioner who was cited as a witness in the

case, moved an application that the be added as a party to the suit inasmuch as he was the owner of the property in dispute, from which the

Defendants were sought to be ejected by the Plaintiffs. The Petitioner claimed ownership rights in the said property. The learned Sub Judge

dismissed the application as in his view the Petitioner was neither a necessary party nor a proper party and could not, therefore, be impleaded in

the suit. Aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner has come up in revision before this Court.

Appearing for the Petitioner Mr. R.P. Sethi has canvassed the proposition that as the Defendants in the suit have raised question of title and

have pleaded that they are the owners of the property and that the Plaintiffs-landlords could not, therefore, eject them from the suit premises, and

further that as there was an issue framed by the trial court in regard to this matter, it was desirable and proper that the Petitioner who claims the

property on his own account by virtue of his ownership rights be ordered to be made a party to the suit proceedings He has submitted that in case

the Petitioner is not made a party and is driven to file a separate suit (which he has already done) the possibility of two conflicting judgments in the

two suits cannot be ruled out.

I am afraid the contention is not well founded. The principle is well recognized that a suit for ejectment cannot be converted into a suit for title

and, therefore, the Petitioner can have no locus standi to ask the court that he be impleaded as a party because he is the owner of the property.

True, that the Defendants have set up title to the property in themselves and the court has raised an issue with regard to that, but that is a matter

between the Plaintiff-landlords and the Defendant-tenants. Surely, a stranger cannot be heard to say that because his interests stand jeopardised on

account, of the suit for ejectment, therefore, he be made a party. His remedy lies by way of instituting a separate suit which it is conceded before

me, has already been instituted by him. There is no apprehension of any conflict of judgments in the two cases inasmuch as the judgment that will

be given in the present suit, can have no binding effect upon the Petitioner because he is not a party to the suit. Precisely the same question arose in

a case reported in 1976 J and K L.R. 341 : AIR 1977 NOC 210 and AIR 1958 J. and K. 39. In the former case, which was decided by me, I

observed that the question of impleadment of a party is to be decided upon the touchstone of Order 1 Rule 10 which provides that only a

necessary or proper party may be impleaded. The mere interest of a party in the fruits of litigation cannot be held to be a true test of his being

impleaded as a party. That was a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent brought by the landlord against the tenant, in which and Mukund Lal had

intervened and had sought impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in AIR 1958 J and K 39 supra, a Division Bench of this Court observed that

in a rent suit the third party claiming to be owner of the property could not be made a party as it would convert a simple suit for arrears of rent into

one for determination of title to the property in respect of which the rent is claimed. Again in 1975 J and K LR 174 : AIR 1976 J and K 29 the

view has been taken that a stranger claiming property who may eventually be affected by the judgment cannot be made a party. This could not be

a cogent ground for making him a party. I am also fortified in this view of mine, by the observations made in AIR 1977 Orissa 183, which was also

a suit for ejectment and in which a third person claimed to be added as a Defendant on the ground that, he had title to the suit property. The

stranger had already filed Anr. suit in the civil court claiming title to the property (just as in the present case). The learned Judge deciding the case

overruled the contention of the stranger that he was a proper or necessary party. It is unnecessary to multiply the authorities in this proposition of

law.

For the foregoing reasons, I think that the order passed by the learned trial court is correct. The Petitioner cannot be made a party in these

proceedings. The petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed with cost.