Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 468 (PNJ)

Inderpal Singh v. Jaspal Singh

2005-03-31

M.M.KUMAR

body2005
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution prays for setting aside order dated 24.9.2004, passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jagadhari allowing an application under Order 1 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by defendant-respondents 9 to 15. The prayer made by the defendant-respondents in the application was that the plaintiff-petitioners could not challenge nine sale deeds of different vendees and therefore, there is misjoinder of causes of action. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioners have filed a civil suit No. 546 of 2002 dated 24.4.2002/15.6.2002 seeking a declaration to the effect that land comprised in various khasra numbers situated at village Miyan Pur (H.B. No. 57) Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar was inalienable, untransferable and impartionable as the Jagirdars had only life time interest therein. The following nine sale deeds were challenged: "(1) Sale deed No. 1307/1 dated 17.1.1996 executed by Defendant No. 1 Jaspal Singh in favour of defendant No. 5 Smt. Karamjit Kaur regarding land measuring 17K-13M bearing Khewat/Khatoni No. 10/24, Khasra Nos. 23/20 Min-East (3-0): 23/21(8-0); 31/1(6-13), situated at village Miyanpur, (H.B. No. 57), Tehsil Jagadhari, Distt. Yamuna Nagar. (2) Sale Deed No. 608/1 dated 30.7.1996 executed by defendant No. 2 Ajmer Singh alias Amarjit Singh in favour of defendant No. 5 Smt. Karamjit Kaur regarding the land measuring 19K-16M bearing Khewat/Khatoni No. 10/22, Khasra Nos. 31//10 (8-0) 32//6(8-0), 14 Min (3-16), situated at Village Miyan Pur (H.B. No. 57), Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar. (3) Sale Deed No. 805/1 dated 25.9.1996 executed by defendant No. 5 Smt. Karamjit Kaur in favour of defendants No. 6 to 8 regarding land measuring 19K-16M bearing Khewat/Khatoni No. 10/22 Min, Khasra No. 31//10(8-0); 32/76(8-0), 14/1 Min (3-16), situated at Village Miyan Pur (H.B. No. 57) Tehsil Jagadhari, Distt. Yamuna Nagar. (4) Sale deed No. 605/1 dated 9.7.1997 executed by defendant No. 3 Shamsher Singh in favour of defendants No. 9 to 11 regarding land measuring 06K-19M, being 139/1046 share out of total land measuring 52K-06M, bearing Khewat/ Khatoni No. 10/22, Khasra Nos. 32//14 min (3-16), Khatoni No. 23, Khasra No. 22//13/1(6-0), 18(8-0), 23(7-11); 32//7 min (4-0), 8-2(1-6), 13 min (1-013) 14 min (4-0), 15(8-9) and Khatoni No. 25, Khasra No. 32//7 min (4-0) and Khatoni No. 27, Khasra N0.32//13 min (4-0), situated at village Miyan pur (H.B. No. 51), Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar. 32//14 min (3-16), Khatoni No. 23, Khasra No. 22//13/1(6-0), 18(8-0), 23(7-11); 32//7 min (4-0), 8-2(1-6), 13 min (1-013) 14 min (4-0), 15(8-9) and Khatoni No. 25, Khasra No. 32//7 min (4-0) and Khatoni No. 27, Khasra N0.32//13 min (4-0), situated at village Miyan pur (H.B. No. 51), Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar. (5) Sale deed No. 265/1 dated 26.5.1998, executed by defendant No. 3 Shamsher Singh in favour of defendant No. 12 Jeet Singh regarding land measuring 17K-4M being 1/7 share out of land measuring 120K-7M, bearing Khewat/Khatoni No. 10/22 to 27, Khasra Nos. 23//10 Min (4-0); 31//10 (8-0); 32//6(8-0) 31//11(8-0); 23//10 min (4-0), 20 min (4-0), 21(8-0), 32//4 min (3-6); 32//1(6-13) 22//4 min (8-0), 17 (8-0), 24(8-0), 22/25(8-0), 23//20 min (4-0), 32//4 min (3-7), 5(6-13); 31/20(8-0) 32//16 (8-0); 32//17/1 (4-8) situated at village Miyan pur (H.B No. 51), Tehsil Jagadhari District Yamuna Nagar. (6) Sale deed N 0.266/1 dated 2 6.5.1998, executed by defendant No. (sic) Ajmer Singh alias Amarjit Singh in favour of defendant No. 12 Jeet Singh regarding land measuring 3K-4M, being 64/3453 share out of land measuring 172K-13M, bearing Khewat/Khatoni No. 10/22 to 27, Khasra Nos. 23//10 min (4-0); 31//10(8-0); 32//6 (8-0), 14 min (3-16); 22/13/1 (8-0); 18(8-0), 23(7-11); 31 min (1-13) 14 min (4-0); 15 (8-0) ;23//10 min (4-0), 20 min (4-0), 21(8-0), 32//4 min (3-6); 32//1(6-13) 22//4 min (8-0), 17 (8-0), 24(8-0), 22/25(8-0), 23//20 min (4-0), 32//4 min (3-7), 5(6-13); 31/20(8-0) 32//16 (8-0); 32//17/1 (4-8) situated at village Miyan pur (H.B No. 51), Tehsil Jagadhari District Yamuna Nagar. (7) Sale deed No. 125/1 dated 4.5.1999 executed by defendant No. 6 to 8 in favour of defendants No. 13 to 15 regarding land measuring 19K-16M bearing Khewat No. 9,m Khatoni No. 13 to 1 9, Khasra No. 332/11/14/1 (3-16), 31//10(8-0); 32//6(8-0), situated at village Miyanpur (H.B. No. 51), Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar. (8) Sale deed No. 1694/1 dated 7.3.2000, executed defendant No. 1 Jas Pal Singh in favour of defendant No. 4, Gurmail Singh regarding land measuring 4 Kanal bearing Khewat/Khatoni No. 9/14 and 16, Khasra Nos. 22//18, 23; 32//7 min, 22//13/1; 32111, total measuring 29K-11M, being 80/591 share, situated at village Miyanpur (H.B. No. 51) Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar. (9) Sale deed No. 251 dated 29.5.2001, executed by defendant No. 5 Karanjit Kaur in favour of defendant No. 16 Lajwant regarding land measuring 14K-13M bearing Khewat/Khatoni No. 10/22, Khasra Nos. 22//18, 23; 32//7 min, 22//13/1; 32111, total measuring 29K-11M, being 80/591 share, situated at village Miyanpur (H.B. No. 51) Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar. (9) Sale deed No. 251 dated 29.5.2001, executed by defendant No. 5 Karanjit Kaur in favour of defendant No. 16 Lajwant regarding land measuring 14K-13M bearing Khewat/Khatoni No. 10/22, Khasra Nos. 23//21;3 1/1, situated at village Miyanpur (H.B. No. 51), situated at village Miyanpur (H.B. No. 51) Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. These sale deeds pertain to CIS sutluj Jagir properties and without any legal base and have been executed against law and without any sale consideration and are illegal, non-est, void ab-initio, Waste Paper and are not sustainable in the eyes of laws and do not effect the rights of the plaintiffs and are liable to be set aside and the mutations passed and sanctioned on the basis of above stated sale deeds are illegal null and void and do not affect the right of plaintiffs and are liable to be set aside and on setting aside the same and the plaintiffs are entitled to possession after the death of defendants No. 1 to 3 in equal shares. And for payment injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the land, referred to above by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or in any other manner, as per evidence. 3. During the course of proceedings and before any issue could be framed, defendant-respondents No. 9 to 15 in their separate written statements raised various preliminary objections including the one raised in para 6, which reads as under:- "that the suit is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties. In fact, all the transaction as mentioned in the heading of the plaint are separate and as such, the joint suit with regard t o a II t ransaction is not maintainable. In case the joint suit is allowed to continue, it will cause great prejudice to the answering defendants while defending the suit." 4. On the afore-mentioned objection pressed by the defendant-respondents, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit by granting liberty to the plaintiff-petitioner to choose one sale deed out of nine to pursue his suit further. In case the joint suit is allowed to continue, it will cause great prejudice to the answering defendants while defending the suit." 4. On the afore-mentioned objection pressed by the defendant-respondents, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit by granting liberty to the plaintiff-petitioner to choose one sale deed out of nine to pursue his suit further. The operative part of the impugned order, dated 24.9.2004 reads as under:- "On careful perusal of the documents placed upon the file, admittedly, the plaintiff has challenged as many as nine sale deeds, details of which are given in the head note of the plaint. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that plaintiff is challenging nine sale deeds to different vendees amounts to misjoinder of cause of action. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable, as the relief claimed by the plaintiff do not arise out of the same but different acts and transactions. However, the plaintiff is free to choose one sale deed out of nine sale deeds to peruse his suit further. This Court has further placed reliance upon wherein it is held C.P.C. Order 2 Rule 3 - Sales executed by plaintiffs father in favour of different persons on different dates and of different portion of land-Single suit by plaintiff challenging such sales would be bad on ground of misjoinder of cause of action. In view of the above facts mentioned above, application of the applicants is hereby allowed subject to the condition that plaintiff is at liberty to choose one sale deed out of nine sale deeds in order to peruse his suit further. Application in hand stands disposed of accordingly." 5. After hearing the learned counsel at some length, I am of the view that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order because under Order 1 Rule 13 read with Order II Rule 3 and 7, objection as to non-joinder or misjoinder of parties and the cause of actions are required to be taken before the issues were settled. A perusal of all the nine sale deeds makes it evident that the sale deeds have been executed by defendant No. 1 to 3, 6 to 8 in favour of different defendants on different dates. A perusal of all the nine sale deeds makes it evident that the sale deeds have been executed by defendant No. 1 to 3, 6 to 8 in favour of different defendants on different dates. Order 1 Rule 13 read with Order 2 Rules 3 and 7 deals with the situation where objections with regard to misjoinder of the parties and causes of action could be raised. The afore-mentioned Order and Rules are reproduced hereunder for facility of reference. Order 1 Rule 13 "All objections on the ground of non-joinder or misjoinder of parties shall be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and, in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, unless the ground of objection has subsequently arisen, and any such objection not so taken shall be deemed to have been waived. Order II - FRAME OF SUIT Rule 3 - Joinder of causes of action (1) Save as otherwise provided, a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly; and any plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly may unite such causes of action in the same suit. (2) Where causes of action are united, the jurisdiction of the Court as regards the suit shall depend on the amount or value of the aggregate subject matters at the date of instituting the suit. Rule 7 - Objections as to misjoinder All objections on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action shall be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and, in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement unless the ground of objection has subsequently arisen, and any such objection not so taken shall be deemed to have been waived." 6 A perusal of the afore-mentioned provision would show that several causes of action can be united in the same suit against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly. If any plaintiff having cause of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly then also causes of action can be joint in one suit. If any plaintiff having cause of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly then also causes of action can be joint in one suit. However, a perusal of the details of sale deeds from item No. 1 to 9 would reveal that plaintiff-petitioners have challenged different sale deeds of different dates executed by different persons in favour of still different persons. There is no common cause of action as contemplated by Order II Rule 3 C.P.C.. It is further evident that the objection has been raised even before the framing of issues and at the initial stage. Therefore, no illegality is discernible from the impugned order warranting interference of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition is wholly without merit and is dismissed. 7. However, it is made clear that the plaintiff would be at liberty to file separate suits in respect of other sale deeds except the one which they choose to challenge in the suit from which the instant petition has arisen.