Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jeetinder Singh (Jatinder Singh) Son Of ... vs Paramjit Singh Son Of Smt. Bachan Kaur on 30 May, 2013
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
CR No.3544 of 2013(O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.3544 of 2013(O&M)
Date of Decision: 30.05.2013
Jeetinder Singh (Jatinder Singh) son of S. Pritam Singh,
resident of House No.2088, Phase-II, Urban Estate, Dugri,
Ludhiana.
... Petitioner
Versus
Paramjit Singh son of Smt. Bachan Kaur, resident of village Loh
Simbli, Tehsil Ghanour, District Patiala and others.
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Amit Kohar, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
*****
1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment? NO
2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the
digest? NO
K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)
1. The defendants are aggrieved against the order of dismissal of the objection as to the frame of suit. The plaintiffs have sued contending that they are the legal heirs of one Bhagwant Kaur. Both the rival parties lay the claim to the properties through Bhagwant Kaur. The plaintiffs contend that being the children of Bachan Kaur, who is daughter of Bhagwant Kaur's co-widow, they are entitled to property. There are several defendants and defendants No.1 to 3 trace the title CR No.3544 of 2013(O&M) [2] to Bhagwant Kaur through a Will said to have been executed by Bhagwant Kaur on 14.08.1956 in favour of their mother, who is the wife of Bhagwant Kaur's husband's brother.
2. On her death, the defendants purport to have obtained the sanction for mutation in their names and dealt with the properties to various person, who are defendants No.4 to 264. The plaintiffs contention is that the sales are different transactions and there will be an embarrassment at the trial, for, all the transactions cannot be impeached by the plaintiff, for, they constitute different causes of action. The Court has rejected this objection and has held that if the plaintiffs succeed and show themselves as the legal heirs of Bhagwant Kaur but for the Will, and if the Will was also not established all the sale deeds will be invalid against the plaintiffs.
3. In my view, the objection regarding misjoinder of causes of action and misjoinder of parties is not correct.
4. Order I Rule 3 state as to who may be joined as defendants:
"3. Who may be joined as defendants - All persons may be joined in one suit as defendants where -
(a) any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist against such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; and CR No.3544 of 2013(O&M) [3]
(b) if separate suits were brought against such persons, any common questions of law or fact would arise."
5. There are two tests, which must be applied to gauge whether a suit instituted against several defendants is justified or not. If the relief in respect of a series of transactions indulged by some of defendants is on a basis that they were not entitled to indulge in such transactions, where they exist jointly, severally or in the alternative, it shall be possible to join all the defendants. It should be accompanied with another condition, namely, that if separate suits were brought against such persons, common question of law and facts could arise. In this case, both these are satisfied, for, the plaintiffs are interested in contending that the defendants No.1 to 3, who claimed under a Will are not owners and that the Will is not genuine. The fact that defendants No.1 to 3 have executed several transactions, which are independent and to several defendants, which are independent, is immaterial since Rule 3 itself contemplates the jointness or severality of transactions as possible for challenge. The key test then will be whether by not allowing for such a joinder of parties and if separate suits had to be instituted whether common questions of law and facts could arise. In this case, indeed, it would be an issue that the plaintiffs are legal heirs but for the Will and a further issue is whether the Will is true. They will have to be answered in every CR No.3544 of 2013(O&M) [4] case if the plaintiffs institute suits against each one of the purchasers. The case answers the twin test under Order 1 Rule 2 CPC. The suit is properly framed and no exception could be brought it. I do not find any error in the order yp subject it to a revision. The order is maintained and the revision is dismissed. Needless to state that any observation made by the Court below regarding the merits of the contentions of the defendants or a contingency which it has expressed, namely, if the plaintiffs are successful all the sale deeds would be rendered invalid ought not to be taken as deciding on the merits of the defence entered by the defendants who are petitioners before this Court.
30th May, 2013 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE