Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1844 (ALL)

Barkat Nabi Khan v. A. D. J. , Court No. 2

2016-05-12

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Sunita Agarwal, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard for final disposal without calling for the counter affidavit. 3. The order passed in application Paper No.17Ga under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C filed by the petitioner is under challenge in the present petition. 4. It appears that the eviction suit was filed by respondent Nos.4 to 8 with reference to a property namely Bunglow 121, Civil Lines, Bareilly on the ground that the tenant namely the Senior Superintendence of Police, Bareilly is in default of rent. The suit was contested by the defendants namely respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 on merits, it was decreed on 23.4.2014. 5. Challenging this order, a revision has been filed before the Court below. In revision, an impleadment application was filed by the petitioner namely Barkat Nabi Khan claiming that he being descendant of Musammat Sarwari Begum wife of Mohd. Jmil Khan resident of House No. 84, Civil Lines, Bareilly had a right in the suit property. It was contended that the suit property was given on lease by a deed of transfer, a plot of approximately 3.85 Acres was initially leased out for the purpose of construction of building for residence of Superintendent of Police, Bareilly to one Haji Mohammad Khan by the "Secretary of State for India in Council". The said lease was later on transferred and all rights of the lease have been assigned to Musammat Sarwari Begum, in whose favour another lease deed dated 15.3.1933 was executed. 6. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not aware of the eviction order and he could know about it only through newspaper report. He immediately moved an application for impleadment being necessary and proper party to the eviction suit, having got interest in it through Musammat Sarwari Begum. 7. In the present petition, an opportunity was granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner to plead his case as to how and in what manner he claims to be owner of the suit property. Nothing more can be brought before the Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner except the lease deed dated 15.3.1933 (which is Annexure No.1 to this petition). 8. Nothing more can be brought before the Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner except the lease deed dated 15.3.1933 (which is Annexure No.1 to this petition). 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents invited attention of the Court to the documents/evidences considered by the Court below. 9. The tenant namely the respondent Nos.2 & 3 have also contested the suit on the plea that the plaintiff was not owner of the suit property. This plea on Issue No.1 was considered and a finding has been arrived at by the trial court. These findings are under challenge before the Revisional Court. 10. So far as the petitioner is concerned, nothing has been brought on record to establish that he is in possession of the suit property or had ever received rent of the same from the defendant/tenant. A dispute of title of the plaintiff has been raised by the impleadment application. In a summary proceeding under the Small Causes Courts Act, it is not open for the Court to decide the intricate question of title. The title of the applicant/petitioner cannot be looked into herein. 11. It is open for him to get a declaration of his title through a proper Civil Suit. 12. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for interference. 13. Dismissed as such. 14. It goes without saying that the observations made by the Court herein above would not come in the way of the petitioner in case, he asserts his right before a Competent Court of Law.