Kashi Nath Singh vs Prof. Bari Cooperative House Construction Society Limited And Others

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

Instant petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 16.09.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division II, Bokaro in Title Suit No.79 of 2012 by which the petition filed by this petitioner for being impleaded in the suit under Order I Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C., has been rejected.

The plaintiff is a cooperative society who has filed the suit for declaration of title to the land fully described in Schedule A on the basis of adverse possession and for grant of permanent injunction restraining defendants from ousting the possession of plaintiffs.

The suit land measures an area 1.79 acres within District Bokaro under P.S. Bokaro Steel City, Sector-XII (OP), Thana No.38, Mauza Tetulia, Khata No.59 of C.S. Plot No.311.

The suit has been brought against two defendants on the plea that defendant no.1 had recently purchased several plots of Khata No.59 including the land of Plot No.311 by different registered sale deeds from Smt. Bindu Devi while defendant no.2 was trying to grab the land forcibly on the basis of settlement by Hukumnama in the year 1940.

Three other defendants being Defendant no. 3, 4 and 5 have been arrayed as party in the said suit by term of order dated 16.02.2014.

The petitioner seeks to be impleaded on the plea that he was in possession over 1.00 acre of the suit property by constructing a residential house in the year 2000 on the basis of an agreement of sale made by one Ram Bilash Agarwal who was a power of attorney holder from Bindu Devi.

It is submitted that this petitioner had filed the agreement of sale before the learned Court below which has been annexed herewith, executed by Ram Bilas Agarwal in favour of petitioner Kashi Nath Singh on 01.03.2001.

It is submitted that it is settled principle of law that when a party is in settled possession of land or an agreement of sale has been executed in his favour then he is a necessary party in the suit. Reliance has been placed on AIR 1968 Madras 142 and (2020) 17 SCC 132. Lastly, it is submitted that learned Court below committed an error of record while dismissing the petition on the ground that not a chit of paper had been filed in support of agreement of sale or any money receipt towards rest payment of advance consideration so as to cause defend under Section 53A of T.P. Act.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance and in view of the claim of the petitioner that he was in possession of the part of the suit property on the basis of agreement of sale, this Court is of the view that he is a necessary party.

Under the circumstance, impugned order is set aside. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.