Harnek Singh vs Jangir Singh

R.L. Anand, J.

This is defendants'' appeal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 14th March, 1978 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Barnala, who set aside the judgment and decree dated 28th September, 1974 passed by the Court of Sub Judge, Ist Class, Barnala, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffsrespondents.

Briefly the facts of the case are that Jangir Singh and others filed a suit for possession of the land measuring 37 kanals 3 marlas situated in village Bihla as described in the headnote of the plaint on the plea that they were the owners of the land in dispute. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that two years prior to the institution of the suit, the defendants entered into the forcible possession of the suit land and that in spite of the demand made by the plaintiffs, they had not vacated the possession.

The suit was contested by the defendants on the ground that they are in continuous possession of the same since the settlement of 195960. The plaintiffs had lost all their rights if any on account of the adverse possession of the defendants. The defendants also took the plea that the suit of the plaintiffs was bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties.

The above pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues:

Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the property in dispute ? O.P.

Whether the suit is filed within the period of limitation ?

Whether the defendants are in possession of the property in suit for more than 12 years, and as such, they have become owner of the same ? O.D.

Whether the matter in dispute was decided by some Supreme Authority ? If so, what is that decision and what is its effect ? OPD.

Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties ? OPD.

Whether the suit is not maintainable against the defendants ? O.D.

Whether the suit is barred by the principles of res judicata ? O.D.

Relief.

The parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their case and finally the suit of the plaintiffs in the trial Court was dismissed. The plaintiffs went in appeal and vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 14th March, 1978 the Additional District Judge, Barnala, accepted the appeal of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit and this time the defendants were aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 14th March, 1978 and they have come in appeal to this Court.

Before me the learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the findings of the first appellate Court on issue No. 5 and submitted that the first appellate Court wrongly held that the suit of the plaintiffs was not bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the Jamabandi for the year 197071 (D15) in which the name of Ganda Singh son of Bakhtawar Singh has been mentioned in joint possession of suit land. After the death of Ganda Singh mutation was sanctioned in favour of his widow Smt. Gurdial Kaur and his daughters and son Jatinder Singh as is evident from the mutation ExD28. These persons who were in joint possession of the suit land along with the other defendants have not been impleaded as parties. The presence of all these persons as codefendants was necessary for the adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit, without which the decree for possession in favour of the plaintiffsrespondents could not be passed. A specific objection was taken by the appellants in their written statement that regarding the nonjoinder of necessary parties, there is no evidence that the defendantsappellants were holding any khasra numbers of the suit land for giving effective relief to the plaintiffrespondents. In the absence of such evidence no effective decree could be passed in favour of the plaintiffs respondents. The findings of the first appellate Court on issue No. 5 when it held that the suit of the plaintiffsrespondents was not bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties, is hereby reversed and that of the trial Court on this issue is hereby restored and I hold that the suit of the plaintiffs was bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the first appellate Court is set aside and the suit of the plaintiffsrespondents is hereby dismissed as previously ordered by the trial Court. There will, however, be no order as to costs.