Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Salim And Others vs Allahabad Development Authority And ... on 7 July, 2010
Author: Krishna Murari
Bench: Krishna Murari
Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37439 of 2010 Petitioner :- Mohd. Salim And Others Respondent :- Allahabad Development Authority And Others Petitioner Counsel :- M.K. Khan Respondent Counsel :- Mustqeem Ahmad,Anita Singh Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
The case set up in the writ petition is that the shop in dispute was allotted in favour of Mohd. Rafiq father of the petitioners by the Allahabad Development Authority. There was some dispute and O.S. No. 470 of 1997 (Mohd. Rafiq vs. Allahabad Development Authority & others) seeking an injunction against the Allahabad Development Authority. During the pendency of the suit, Mohd. Rafiq died and the petitioners were substituted in his place. During the pendency of the proceedings, respondent no. 2 Mohd. Habib brother of late Mohd. Rafiq moved an application for being impleaded in the proceeding on the allegation that the shop in dispute was allotted to their father late Wali Mohammad and after his death tenancy was inherited by him and his brother late Rafiq Ahmad as such he was a necessary party. Both the courts below finding that respondent no. 2 was a necessary party for effective adjudication of the dispute, allowed the same. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that since after death of their grandfather, the shop in dispute came to the exclusive possession of their father Mohd. Rafiq as such the respondent no. 2 had no right in the same and the impleadment application has wrongly and illegally been allowed.
I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
It is undisputed that the shop was allotted to Wali Mohammad and on his death it would be inherited by both of his sons. The objection being raised that Mohd. Habib has relinquished his right in favour of Mohd. Rafiq is a disputed question of fact and is to be decided on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties and thus it cannot constitute a ground to throw out the claim of respondent without any adjudication in the matter.
In view of above, no illegality has been committed by the courts below in allowing the impleadment application and the impugned orders do not call for any interference by this Court. The petition fails and accordingly stands dismissed. Order Date :- 7.7.2010 nd