Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1236 (MP)

Mithulal v. Bherulal

2000-11-21

A.K.GOHIL

body2000
Short Note The applicant Mithulal had filed an application under Order I Rule 10 read with section 151, CPC for adding him as a party in the suit pending between the landlord and tenant. Non-applicant Bherulal who is the original plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the non-applicants No.2 Ramnivas. No.3 Ramgopal and No.4 Shantilal, all are sons of Prabhulal. The submission of applicant Mithulal in his application is that he is the grandson of late Smt. Sunderbai and he is also the co-owner of the disputed house, therefore, he should also be added as a party in the suit. The submission on behalf of the non-applicant plaintiff Bherulal is that he is the son of late Smt. Sunderbai. Smt. Sunderbai executed a will on 2.5.1997 in favour of the plaintiff and bequeathed the said home in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, on 14.6.1991 she died. Since than the premises are in possession of the plaintiff. On 20.8.1994 plaintiff Bherulal inducted one Prabhulal as his tenant in the disputed premises. Now, plaintiff Bherulal has filed this suit against the LRs of tenant Prabhulal. In this suit Mithulal has filed this application for joining him as a party in the suit on the ground that he is also a co-owner. The submission of the applicant Mithulal is that he is a necessary party in the suit as a co-owner, therefore, he should be allowed as a party in the suit. The trial Court after hearing the parties has rejected the application or the applicant Mithulal holding that he is not a necessary party in the suit against which he has preferred this revision. The submission of the learned counsel for non-applicant is that after the death of Smt. Sunderbai in 1981 the non-applicant-plaintiff became the owner of the disputed property by virtue of will and he had inducted Prabhulal as a tenant in the suit premises. Now, he has filed a suit against LRs of tenants for eviction in which Mithulal has filed an application for adding him as a party, whereas after 1981 he has neither objected nor claimed any right in the property, therefore, he has filed this application just to defeat the rights of the plaintiff and to harrass him. Now, he has filed a suit against LRs of tenants for eviction in which Mithulal has filed an application for adding him as a party, whereas after 1981 he has neither objected nor claimed any right in the property, therefore, he has filed this application just to defeat the rights of the plaintiff and to harrass him. The trial Court has rejected his application on the ground that in this suit it is only to be decided that whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties or not. In reply Shri Saraf cited the decision in the case of Panna and another v. Jeevanlal and another reported in 1976 JLJ 84 (FB) in which it has been held that the plaintiff is dominus litis and cannot be forced to add parties against whom he does not want to fight, unless it is a compulsion of the rule of law. He also cited another decision in the case of Sunil and others v. Satyanarayan Dubey and others reported in 1985 JLJ 191 : AIR 1985 MP 199 in which it has been held that some persons claiming to be joined as necessary parties on the ground that they are in possession as to right as co-parcener-claimants are not necessary parties because the suit based on contract of tenancy, the question of title cannot be gone into. A suit based on contract of tenancy would succeed or fail on plaintiffs proving or failing to prove the contract of tenancy and the grounds for ejectment. To decide these questions, it is not necessary to adjudicate upon and settle the controversy as to title to the suit accommodation, i.e., whether person claiming possession as to right was also owner of the suit accommodation and whether defendants in the suit had the right or not. He has cited another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation, Bombay reported in 1992 (1) MPWN 159 in which it has been held that the main object of the rule is to prevent multiplicity of actions. The person to be joined must be one whose presence is necessary as a party. He has cited another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation, Bombay reported in 1992 (1) MPWN 159 in which it has been held that the main object of the rule is to prevent multiplicity of actions. The person to be joined must be one whose presence is necessary as a party. The only ground which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action is that he should be bound by the result of the action which cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party. Quoted from Devlin, J. : 'the test is: May the order for which the plaintiff is asking directly affect the intervener in the enjoyment of his legal rights'. A person who can be joined in the suit must be one of the persons necessary for settling the question completely or concurrently. Undisputedly the plaintiff Bherulal has filed the suit against LRs of tenant Prabhulal for eviction on the basis of contract of tenancy. The objector Mithulal yet has not taken any action about establishing his right as co-owner in the property. It is yet to be established and decided that he is the co-owner in the suit property. It is true that in this suit he cannot be allowed to establish his independent rights. Therefore, he is not necessary party in this suit. In view of this factual position on record that on 20.8.1994 the plaintiff Bherulal had inducted Prabhulal as a tenant and there was a contract of tenancy between them, therefore, the trail Court has rightly rejected the application of the applicant Mithulal for adding him as a party. Consequently, I do not see any illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. No interference is called for. Accordingly, this revision has no merit, therefore, it is dismissed. No order as to costs.