AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.—I.A. No. XI filed by the proposed defendants 2 to 8 praying for impleading them in the suit is allowed by the impugned order on the ground they are the owners of the suit property; since they have got right, title and interest over the suit property, they are necessary parties to the suit.
The records reveal that the petitioner herein filed suit for ejectment against the sole defendant/respondent No. 1 herein. The evidence of the parties is recorded. At that stage, application came to be filed by defendants 2 to 8 for getting themselves impleaded in the suit as additional defendants. It is the case of the proposed defendants that they are granted occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal, Belgaum on 23.3.1988 and even Form No. 10 is issued in their favour on 22.4.1988. According to them, since they are the owners of the property, the suit for ejectment filed by the petitioner herein who has got no right over the property is liable to be dismissed. Proposed defendants pray for impleading them in the suit since they are necessary and proper parties.
I have perused the order of the Land Tribunal dated 23.3.1988 and the copy of Form No. 10 issued by the Land Tribunal. The occupancy rights are granted in favour of Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas in respect of Sy. No. 79/1 situated at Khasbag village, Belgaum. The suit property in question is CTS No. 211, which is part of Sy. No. 79/1.
Sri Shetty, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff is perpetual lease holder from the earlier owner; there is adornment of tenancy in his favour and therefore he is entitled to evict the tenant under him. According to the petitioner/plaintiff, the defendants 2 to 8 cannot come on record in the present suit and if at all they have got right over the property, it is open for them to institute separate proceedings for the same.
The said arguments are opposed by Sri Naganuri, learned advocate appearing for the respondents by contending that since the plaintiff himself has no right to file a suit for eviction, he cannot be allowed to take a decree behind the back of the respondents.
It is more than clear from the order of the Land Tribunal that the occupancy rights are granted in favour of Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 in respect of Sy. No. 79/1 to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas. Ex. P1, the perpetual lease over which the petitioner/plaintiff relies itself clarifies the description of the suit property. It is clearly stated in the said document that CTS No. 211 is comprised in Sy. No. 79/1. Even the occupancy certificate is issued in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 8 on 22.4.1988. If it is so, it is clear that Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 are the owners of the property bearing Sy. No. 79/1 to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas. Since CTS No. 211 (the suit property) is comprised in Sy. No. 79/1, Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 are entitled to come on record. In view of the same, the trial court is justified in allowing the application. Hence no interference is called for.
Petition fails and the same stands dismissed.