Patna High Court
Mahanth Kashi Das vs Krishna Gopal Singh on 26 June, 1930
Equivalent citations: 128IND. CAS.790A, AIR 1930 PATNA 592
JUDGMENT Wort, J.
1. This is an application against the decision of the learned Munsif dated the 25th January, 1930. An application was made by the petitioner before me to be allowed to intervene in a rent suit. The case of the intervenor was that the holding was purchased by him and that the landlord had in fact recognised him by the acceptance of rent. He appears to have an alternative case that even if there had not been a recognition, there is a custom to transfer without the consent of the landlord in the village and, therefore, he was a tenant of the holding. In support of this application the case of Bacha Sham Sunder Kuer v. Balgobind Singh 125 Ind. Cas. 119 : 11 P.L.T. 243 : Ind. Rul. (1930) Pat. 471 : A.I.R. 1930 Pat. 323 has been cited. The question, however, which does arise is whether I can intervene in revision in this decision, the learned Munsif having exercised his descretion against the applicant.
2. I do not wish to lay down any rule but in this case I propose to deal with the question on this basis. It is quite clear that the purpose of the rent suit was to bring the holding to sale. This question of whether the applicant was recognised by the landlord will have to be tried, if not in this rent suit, in the execution proceedings; and in those circumstances I think the applicant should be allowed to be made a party to the action to try the question of whether he was in fact recognised by the landlord and that question only.
3. The application is allowed and the rule made absolute. Hearing fee two gold mohurs.
4. This order will govern the analogous application.