Ramesh Chand Sharma vs Bhagwan Singh and Another

S.K. Gangele, J.—Heard. The plaintiff-petitioner has filed this petition against the orders dated 13-03-2012 (Annexure P-1) and dated 02-04-2012 (Annexure P-2) passed by trial Court in Civil Suit No. 38-A/2010.

By the aforesaid order, the trial Court allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 2 under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for eviction against the respondent No. 1 on the ground of Section 12(1)(a)(b) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The respondent No. 1 denied the tenancy. He further pleaded that he was not in possession of the suit premises, neither he was a tenant of the suit premises. The respondent No. 2 filed an application before the trial Court that she purchased the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 20-03-2006 from one Smt. Kunti Devi. Hence, she is a necessary party. The Court allowed the aforesaid application.

Earlier, Smt. Ram Devi, the mother of the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit which was registered as Civil Suit No. 22-A/1996. In the aforesaid suit, following persons were parties:-

(1) Nadriya Kushwah, (2) Bhagwan Singh Kushwah and (3) Smt. Kalavati

The suit was decreed on the basis of a compromise and it was held that Smt. Ram Devi was the owner of House bearing No. 1434/1, situated at Kishanbagh Gurja, Bahodapur, Lashkar, Gwalior. Bhagwan Singh Kushwah - defendant No. 2 in the aforesaid suit was held to be the tenant of the accommodation because he had accepted the tenancy.

Thereafter, another suit was filed by Smt. Kunti Devi, which was registered as Civil Suit No. 01-A/1998. In the aforesaid suit, following persons were parties:-

(1) Smt. Kalavati (2) Smt. Ram Devi and (3) Ramesh Chand alias Ramu

The suit was withdrawn on the ground that Smt. Kunti Devi had executed a sale deed on 12-11-1996. The Court accepted the application and dismissed the suit as withdrawn vide order dated 15-04-2002. It means that the judgment and decree passed in earlier suit was not set aside by the competent Court of jurisdiction.

The respondent No. 2 filed an application before the trial Court under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, pleading that she purchased the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 20-03-2006 from one Smt. Kunti Devi. Hence, she became owner of the suit premises and she is a necessary party.

In my opinion, the ownership of the respondent No. 2 could not be said to be absolute because as stated earlier in this order that there is a judgment and decree passed by the competent court on the basis of compromise in Civil Suit No. 22-A/1996, by which Smt. Ram Devi declared as owner of the suit premises. The present petitioner-plaintiff is the son of Smt. Ram Devi.

It is an admitted fact that in eviction proceedings, the question of title is ancillary one. The Court could not decide the question of title in eviction proceedings as held by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Lata Sharma Vs. Raj Pal and Another,

Looking to the facts of the case, in my opinion, the trial Court has committed an error of law in allowing the application filed by the respondent No. 2 under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC.

Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 13-03-2012 [Annexure P-1] and dated 02-04-2012 [Annexure P-2] are hereby quashed. The application filed by the respondent No. 2 under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC is hereby dismissed. It is observed that the respondent No. 2 is at liberty to file independent proceeding in regard to her claim of ownership of the suit premises. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly.