Jayakumar vs Vilasini

Mary Joseph, J.

This Original Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order passed by Principal Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara (for short ‘court below’) on 09.06.2022 in I.A. No.1 of 2021 in O.S. No.98/2021. True copy of the order under challenge is produced alongwith the Original Petition on hand as Ext.P5.

The order assailed was passed by the court below in I.A. No.1 of 2021, which is an application filed by some strangers, to implead them in the array of defendants in the Original Suit. The application was allowed by the court below permitting the proposed defendants/petitioners to be impleaded in the Suit as defendants 6 to 9.

The Original Suit was filed by the State Government against defendants 1 to 5 alleging that the 1st defendant as well as the 2nd defendant executed a settlement deed bearing No. 240/09 in favour of the 3rd and 4th defendants, by including the Government property which was scheduled as item No.2 in the deed and ‘A1’ in the Suit. It was further alleged that the 5th defendant had also executed a sale deed bearing No.241/09 in favour of the 3rd and 4th defendants wherein also some portion of the Government property was included. The said property is scheduled as item No.2 in the deed and ‘B’ in the Suit. It is alleged that defendants executed the above deeds incorporating Government land with the illegal intention to misappropriate the same. The Original Suit was filed in the context, seeking for a declaration that the settlement deed No.240/09 and sale deed No.241/09 are void documents.

The 3rd and 4th defendants had filed written statement in the Original Suit. It was stated that the deeds sought to be declared as void are valid documents. According to them, the defendants proposed to be impleaded as additional defendants claimed right over the plaint A and B schedule properties by virtue of deed No.305/1980 and Original Suit as O.S. No. 228/09 was filed for getting their right over the said properties declared and that is pending consideration of the Sub Court.

The plaintiff in the above Original Suit is the 1st respondent in the Interlocutory Application. Objection was filed by him in the Interlocutory Application denying the averments in the Suit. The application was sought to be dismissed for the reason that the proposed defendants are not necessary parties. But when the Interlocutory Application was heard, the 1st respondent/plaintiff made a submission orally that serious objection against impleadment is not there for them. Respondents 3 and 6 in the Interlocutory Application have filed objection contending that the proposed defendants are total strangers to the Suit and therefore, neither necessary nor proper parties. Respondents 4 and 5 also filed objection in the Interlocutory Application contending that the proposed defendants are neither necessary parties nor proper parties but are strangers to the Suit.

The Original Suit on hand was filed by the Government seeking to declare the two title deeds executed in favour of defendants therein as void documents for the reason that those also takes in Government properties. It is submitted that an Original Suit filed as O.S. No. 228/2009 by proposed defendants for getting their title over plaint A and B schedule properties declared in their favour is pending before the Sub Court. In the suit on hand, the title deeds, by virtue of which 1st and 2nd defendants as well as 5th defendant in the Suit on hand transferred their respctive right over plaint A and B schedule properties in favour of 3rd and 4th defendants were sought to be declared as void for the reason that Government property is also included.

In the above context, petitioners in the Interlocutory Application though are categorised as strangers to the Suit, having claimed right over the properties scheduled in the Suit on hand are undoubtedly necessary parties. True that the proposed defendants did not produce any documents alongwith the application to support their claim that they are having right over the plaint schedule properties, but defendants 3 and 4 admitted in their written statement that right over A and B schedule properties was claimed by the proposed defendants on the strength of deed bearing No.305/80 and to get it declared, a Suit is also filed before Sub Court.

In Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal. V. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others [1992 KHC 1025] relied on by the learned counsel, the Apex Court has held that a necessary party is one whose presence before the court may be necessary to enable it to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the Suit effectually and completely. Having claimed right over the plaint scheduled properties, the juncture of the defendants proposed to be impleaded in the Suit on hand is necessary to enable the court below to have adjudication of the issues involved effectually and completely. Therefore, impleadment of them into the array of defendats is very much relevant for arriving at a just and proper decision in the Suit on hand. The court below has allowed the application seeking to implead the proposed defendants as additional defendants in the Suit on hand by the impugned order. The order passed being correct, legal and proper is not liable to be interfered with.

For the foregoing reasons, O.P.(C) is dismissed.